Greg Troxel says "just plain wrong" about an older version of the Big Table row for Massachusetts that pre-dates my harmonization of New England states thanks to Peter Dobratz' contributions. As I have subsequently harmonized Peter's table with the Big Table, Greg's point now appears to be moot. Thank you for noting that harmonizing the Big Table with Peter's is "great progress." That was a bit of sweat and tears last night (editing multiple sub-row tables is a somewhat trial-and-error-prone process) and I'm glad it's now done! I have also "trimmed up" the introductory text about townships (in the Midwest, not New England) per your suggestion; thank you. I have sharpened the statement about New England governments tending toward "weak-county / strong-town" as it is useful to support the notion of counties vanishing altogether in Rhode Island, almost disappearing in Connecticut and going-going-not-quite-all-gone in Massachusetts. If you still disagree, thinking it should be dropped, I welcome constructive text improvements to the introduction.
Whether Precinct demotes from 9 to 10 in Towns seems a valid point, especially how you make it. However, I disagree that we should or shouldn't map such "low-level" details (admin_level=9, 10) in our map; I think we should if we can, which is why I am doing my best to document what values should be used, in all cases. (Thank you to everybody who helps us create consensus to do so). Peter, I'd be curious what you think about demoting Precinct in Town from 9 to 10 in Massachusetts. Thanks, everybody: great dialog! SteveA California _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
