The way it is now (I believe) is that Connecticut counties "exist" in OSM as expected, tagged boundary=administrative + admin_level=6. Additionally, (thanks to Mashin's entry, I believe) Connecticut has "Regional COGs" tagged boundary=COG (with no admin_level tag, as that key associates with boundary=administrative, never with boundary="any value besides administrative"). This wasn't true for a while (days to a week or two) in May during a dispute about Mashin's entry of COGs, but (thanks to some good dialog and diplomacy by Minh), now the above seems to be a widely-agreed upon consensus, by locals and this Californian alike. The reasoning behind this is both "the locals say it is this way" as well as "some minor aspects of government, like judiciary, district attorney and possibly sheriff area boundaries do exist at the county level, so they are administrative, but to a lesser degree than other states, so these ARE admin_level=6 nonetheless."
This is approximately the same in the eight (out of 14) counties in Massachusetts where it is said that "these counties have limited to no government:" local consensus and tagging is deliberate to the extent that all 14 counties in the state are tagged boundary=administrative + admin_level=6. However, in Rhode Island (and this is the only state in 50 where this is true), counties are tagged boundary=region, border_type=county, with no admin_level key with any value whatsoever on county boundaries. This is based upon there being no governmental / administrative functions at this "level," counties are said to be essentially geographic, not political / governmental / administrative areas. If there remains a lack of clarity or disagreement about these topics to anybody, now seems to be a good time and place to express it. SteveA _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
