That is what I thought as well. It is now gone. If I didn't screw up the boundary multipolygons everything should be correct. (I hate boundaries!!!)
Thanks for the help, Clifford On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Steven Johnson <sejohns...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, U.S. Census Bureau treats them as statistical, not aim boundaries. > > --SEJ > > Sent from my electronic tether. > > On 2015年5月19日, at 21:33, stevea <stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote: > > >> On 5/19/15 Richard Welty <rwe...@averillpark.net> wrote: > >> they probably shouldn't be in an administrative boundary category > anyway, > >> as they don't have any sort of local governance function. > > > > Agreed, +1. I've been similarly locally blurring out (away from > importance or relevance in OSM) and/or diminishing CDP boundaries as I do > listen here. > > > > Many of these are in OSM yet they might be seen as they are, especially > as/when combined with administrative boundary. In short, census > delineations are not administrative, rather, more like a statistical > approximation. What that particular census formula purports to denote > might be debated, though that seems tedious. > > > > At a certain point we start to do cartwheels around Monte Carlo > simulations regarding Constitutional questions getting asked. Let's check > that and continue. > > > > SteveA > > California > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-us mailing list > > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
