[Talk-us] Relation disappearing from renderer

[the.spui.ninja]

So I noticed recently that the boundary for the Black Hills National Forest
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4069100
 ) has started disappearing
from the standard view, while the boundary for the Buffalo Gap National
Grassland, which has basically identical tags where it matters, is still
visible (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2834554). I checked that the
BHNF relation wasn't broken (at least as best as I can tell; I put it in
manually a few years ago so it has a lot of parts), so I'm not sure what's
going on. 

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] admin_level and COGs, MPOs, SPDs, Home Rule

[stevea]

Thank you, Kevin.  And so it goes.

I'll be an observer for a while.

SteveA

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] admin_level and COGs, MPOs, SPDs, Home Rule

[Kevin Kenny]

On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 3:24 PM stevea  wrote:
> I'm not in Massachusetts, but as I constantly strive to improve my listening 
> skills, so I ask you to please point out any flaws in my understanding of 
> this.  I'm literally quoting from Footnote 18:  "Geographically divided into 
> 14 counties, Massachusetts effectively has no county government in eight of 
> them, similar to Rhode Island. This means in these eight counties (Berkshire, 
> Essex, Franklin, Hampden, Hampshire, Middlesex, Suffolk and Worcester), all 
> government administration is at state (4) and local (8, 9) levels. However, 
> several functions implemented by the state are organized by county lines, 
> including District Attorney, Sheriff and the judiciary."

You just said it yourself.  They still have county prosecutors, county
sheriffs, and county courts - paid by the state, but with local
jurisdiction. There is some residual local government, even if the
county's executive and legislative powers, and its powers to tax and
spend, have reverted to the state. Moreover, no city or township
crosses a county line, as I understand it.

If someone dies, having been a resident of Great Barrington, the will
will be probated in Berkshire County, not Hampden County or anywhere
else. A land sale there will be registered with the Register of Deeds
for the Berkshire County Southern District. A misdemeanant there will
be arrested by the Berkshire County Sheriff (elected by the county,
paid by the state), prosecuted by the Berkshire County District
Attorney, and if convicted, will serve sentence in the Berkshire
County House of Correction. All of these are offices of the state
government, because the county has no power to tax and spend, but some
of the officers remain locally elected.

The boroughs of New York City have a similar setup. They have ceded
all legislative function to the city. They retain only a formal
executive branch. (They still have elected borough presidents, but
their role is advisory and ceremonial). They have no power to tax and
spend. Nevertheless, they retain their own judiciary, and I'd say that
if even one of the three branches of government remains divided along
county lines, you still have an admin level there. This goes doubly if
the division is nearly hierarchical - if subdivisions at a finer
admin_level seldom or never cross the borders of coarser ones. (New
York's Villages are a trifle messy there - about a sixth cross
township lines. But since they have limited home rule, have officers
in all three branches, and enjoy the power to tax and spend, they of
course are administrative divisions anyway.)

New York's 'Hamlets' have zero home rule, but we still bring them in
at the same admin_level as villages, when their boundaries are well
known, because town ordinances so often refer to them. Also, in the
suburban townships, the Hamlets' boundaries are frequently defined on
all sides by the neighboring Villages, so things like voting districts
have to follow them. They're ordinarily signed in the suburban
townships, and have a strong local identity. If I go three miles or so
from where I'm sitting and cross over the bridge, I encounter a large
sign saying 'Welcome to Rexford', with 'Town of Clifton Park'
underneath in much smaller print. The Hamlet where I grew up (Inwood)
had an even stronger local identity. If you referred to it as
Hempstead, the locals would look at you as if you had two heads, even
though the Town of Hempstead was the local government. Hempstead was a
half-a-dozen villages away! (The township that I currently inhabit has
neither villages nor hamlets within its borders.)

Wards of cities also usually don't have home rule, but many places map
them, again because so many services get divided along their
boundaries, and so many local ordinances refer to them by number or
name, including metes and bounds only by reference.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] admin_level and COGs, MPOs, SPDs, Home Rule

[stevea]

On May 8, 2020, at 12:09 PM, Greg Troxel  wrote:
> My point is that in Massachusetts, counties are real in that the
> government expects you to know what county you are in, and there are
> signs. Many state government functions are lined up with these counties
> - it's just that the people are state employees instead.  The federal
> government believes in counties - they are used to organize lots of
> things even if the counties have no taxing and spending.  So they really
> are a political subdivision, even if they have zero government
> functions.
> 
> We in the Massachusetts local community want to have admin_level 6
> relations for these boundaries, and I personally consider deleting them
> to be vandalism.

I'm not in Massachusetts, but as I constantly strive to improve my listening 
skills, so I ask you to please point out any flaws in my understanding of this. 
 I'm literally quoting from Footnote 18:  "Geographically divided into 14 
counties, Massachusetts effectively has no county government in eight of them, 
similar to Rhode Island. This means in these eight counties (Berkshire, Essex, 
Franklin, Hampden, Hampshire, Middlesex, Suffolk and Worcester), all government 
administration is at state (4) and local (8, 9) levels. However, several 
functions implemented by the state are organized by county lines, including 
District Attorney, Sheriff and the judiciary."

I believe the six counties WITH "county government" deserve 
boundary=administrative, admin_level=6.  I believe the eight counties WITHOUT 
"county government" deserve border_type=county (and no admin_level key-value 
pair whatsoever).  I wholeheartedly agree with you that removing / deleting / 
altering the "county boundaries" (and there are two kinds, as our wiki and I 
describe them here) besides these tagging schemes is vandalism.

The federal government certainly does "believe in" counties, it (via the Census 
Bureau, USGS and other agencies that refer to them) categorizes them in 
sometimes slightly-different ways than OSM does.  (We say so in our wiki, and 
why, and point out that we also align with the Census Bureau in certain 
circumstances, like CCCs, for the most part).  It also describes many other 
"things" (like Census County Divisions and many flavors of Statistical Areas) 
which OSM happily ignores.  In fact, the federal government even disagrees with 
itself:  the Census Bureau and USGS divide the USVI into either two or three 
county-equivalents (take your pick).  So, OSM must make its own decisions, 
based on its own definitions.  Often, OSM and the federal government agree on 
these things.  Sometimes, not quite.  That's OK, especially as we recognize 
this, point it out and explain why.  I think we do OK here.  The distinctions 
can be subtle, but they are explainable, so we do.

Wow, people still have patience to discuss this!

SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] admin_level and COGs, MPOs, SPDs, Home Rule

[Greg Troxel]

stevea  writes:

>> Also, I don't believe in "states with no counties".  I do believe in
>> "county government dissolved".  Still, the counties as boundaries
>> continue to exist, and remain important, and shoudl still be
>> admin_level=6.  Many times interacting with the government you are
>> required to list your county.  And, almost everyone believes in county
>> boundaries and the notion of knowing which county you are in, even if
>> they don't collect taxes and have employees.
>
> I don't wish to insult you, but in this regard, it matters little what
> you believe.  As long as we agree that the constructs of human
> political institutions "are what we say they are," beliefs really
> don't enter the equation.  There really do appear to be four states
> without counties, though two (Alaska and Louisiana) have "county
> equivalents."  The two remaining (2.5 if we include Massachusetts' 8
> non-counties out of its 14) which really don't are Rhode Island (and
> that's fairly "pure" when it comes to "no counties," they are truly
> geographic in nature, not political) and Connecticut.  The latter
> "dissolved" its counties in 1960, "reformulated 15 RCOGs" (councils of
> town governments with strictly limited function, like landuse
> planning), then in 2014 reduced these to 9 RCOGs.

My point is that in Massachusetts, counties are real in that the
government expects you to know what county you are in, and there are
signs. Many state government functions are lined up with these counties
- it's just that the people are state employees instead.  The federal
government believes in counties - they are used to organize lots of
things even if the counties have no taxing and spending.  So they really
are a political subdivision, even if they have zero government
functions.

We in the Massachusetts local community want to have admin_level 6
relations for these boundaries, and I personally consider deleting them
to be vandalism.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] admin_level and COGs, MPOs, SPDs, Home Rule

[stevea]

On May 8, 2020, at 4:58 AM, Greg Troxel  wrote:
> I think it's great to record in the wiki established consensus and best
> practices.

In the case of admin_level values in the USA as cited, I believe that is 
exactly what we did.  (Full disclosure, I have always done my best to 
facilitate this, especially the flurry of activity in the summer of 2017 and 
less so but still actively in 2018, as documented on the Talk page.  I did 
recently become loquacious, I better endeavor at concision).  Perhaps 
immodestly, I'd say we've done an almost exemplary job of it, over many years, 
given local and regional passions of OSM contributors while wanting to stay 
true to what I might call "a national framework" (of constitutions, statutes 
and legal traditions) and "an international OSM framework" (of the 2-through-11 
values of admin_level values flexibly but not brokenly accommodating USA's 
administrative structure).

> I think it's unfortunate when things are designed first in
> the wiki separate from established consensus, and then later referred to
> as representing consensus, like the notion of ele being for ellipsoidal
> heights in the Altitude pag.[q

As I note above, I don't think that's quite what we did here.  What we did (it 
is self-documenting, though lengthy, as it was over several years) was to 
establish consensus IN the wiki (and I believe some talk-us discussion, which 
is linked where crucial), THEN we documented this consensus in the wiki 
afterwards.  It wasn't "design first," it was "let's discuss first, understand 
and agree what states actually do in law, statute and township councils (for 
example), then we'll document that."  The "Little Table" of nine states around 
New England was the most recent sharpening of focus, what might be called a 
"sprint to the finish line."  I consider the Big Table substantially complete.  
In fact, I just (today) added Utah, which has recently (2016?) added townships 
to its state law (though only Salt Lake County has them, and only five).

>> Greg, the sort of COG Connecticut has built (an RCOG) is unique as
>> "COG entity in a state with no counties."  There are also COGs in
>> states with counties and I temporarily assume perhaps in states with
>> townships, though I can't offer immediately a concrete example.  I
>> don't know what numerical value of admin_level we would begin to
>> assign to these (we shouldn't assign any, imho, and it seems your
>> opinion, too), I have heard 5, 5.5. 6 and 7.  "Collisions with
>> existing," hence 5.5.  We started to do this with CDPs at 8 and backed
>> that out: they're not these.
> 
> I looked up COG> I don't see COG as an admin_level.  They are basically
> like some combination school districts and regional planning agenceies.

Right, footnote 4 says we disagreed to do this in 2012 (after I myself thought 
California LAFCOs might be admin_level=5, they are not) and Footnote 12 says we 
shouldn't do this in Connecticut accordingly.  Mashin's assertion (that we 
should tag Connecticut RCOGs with boundary=administrative instead of 
boundary=COG) flies in the face of this effectively established consensus.  
However, I am willing to revisit this provided we get a political scientist 
with OSM admin_level savvy to help suss this out.  Why?  Because Connecticut 
dissolving its counties and then reformulating RCOGs decades later is a unique 
situation and there MIGHT be a possibility that OSM rightly calls them not 
boundary=COG but boundary=administrative.  IF we get there (big if), what 
admin_level value we might assign them is another kettle of fish.

> Also, I don't believe in "states with no counties".  I do believe in
> "county government dissolved".  Still, the counties as boundaries
> continue to exist, and remain important, and shoudl still be
> admin_level=6.  Many times interacting with the government you are
> required to list your county.  And, almost everyone believes in county
> boundaries and the notion of knowing which county you are in, even if
> they don't collect taxes and have employees.

I don't wish to insult you, but in this regard, it matters little what you 
believe.  As long as we agree that the constructs of human political 
institutions "are what we say they are," beliefs really don't enter the 
equation.  There really do appear to be four states without counties, though 
two (Alaska and Louisiana) have "county equivalents."  The two remaining (2.5 
if we include Massachusetts' 8 non-counties out of its 14) which really don't 
are Rhode Island (and that's fairly "pure" when it comes to "no counties," they 
are truly geographic in nature, not political) and Connecticut.  The latter 
"dissolved" its counties in 1960, "reformulated 15 RCOGs" (councils of town 
governments with strictly limited function, like landuse planning), then in 
2014 reduced these to 9 RCOGs.

Do COGs (MPOs, SPDs...) in OTHER states (besides Connecticut) deserve 
boundary=administrative (and hence admin_level)?  No, I 

Re: [Talk-us] How to map snowmobile trails in US?

[Jmapb]

On 5/7/2020 8:05 PM, Bob Gambrel wrote:

So imagine this simple example. A path (of some sort) goes from point
A to B. Between points B and C there is no way (no path, road,
highway, cycle way, foot path, track, etc. Then there is another path
of some sort between points C and D. So the relationship (a snowmobile
route) includes ways "AB", "BC" and "CD". What type of way should "BC"
be?

This area shows such a snowmobile trail:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=17/45.83596/-95.31124

Much of it is not along any visible way of any sort. It looks like
part of it could be on an existing (but not mapped unpaved service
road) and part of it crosses a stream next to (but probably on) an
unmapped little bridge. If all the ways that were mappable were
actually mapped, most of the snomobile trail would still be on
unmapped (unmappable) "invisible in the summer" ways.


Best I know, these paths that only appear in the winter should be tagged
highway=path + seasonal=winter + snowmobile=yes/designated. Probably
also good to add foot=no and bicycle=no.

Of course they'll render year-round, and future mappers looking at
snowless aerial imagery might be inclined to delete them. So it would
probably be good to add a note that says "this path only appears in the
winter and is tagged accordingly, please do not delete based on aerial
imagery."

There's extremely limited use (literally 13 uses, all in Finland) of
seasonal:winter:highway=path. Putting the seasonality in a prefix would
allow you to avoid the troll tag aspect of highway=path +
seasonal=winter, but software support for this scheme is unlikely.

Asking on the tagging list is a good idea -- Talk-us is a bit of a ghost
town.

Jason


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] admin_level and COGs, MPOs, SPDs, Home Rule

[Greg Troxel]

stevea  writes:

> Our wiki is a vital source of reference and "how to."  It deserves the
> very best effort we can give it.  Sometimes, especially with a complex
> topic where local knowledge matters, yet so also does learned,
> scholarly perspective, a Discussion page gets wordy and detailed.  I
> do believe OSM wants to get this page as "right" as it can.  Minh and
> I agree there can be "multiple books in the library about (roughly)
> one subject;" the wiki he started on Boundaries is "more
> descriptive"while this one is "more prescriptive."  We walk a careful
> edge.  There are some crafted boundaries (heh) of syntax and
> semantics.  Let's build upon what we've built (with some effort).

I think it's great to record in the wiki established consensus and best
practices.  I think it's unfortunate when things are designed first in
the wiki separate from established consensus, and then later referred to
as representing consensus, like the notion of ele being for ellipsoidal
heights in the Altitude pag.[q

> Greg, the sort of COG Connecticut has built (an RCOG) is unique as
> "COG entity in a state with no counties."  There are also COGs in
> states with counties and I temporarily assume perhaps in states with
> townships, though I can't offer immediately a concrete example.  I
> don't know what numerical value of admin_level we would begin to
> assign to these (we shouldn't assign any, imho, and it seems your
> opinion, too), I have heard 5, 5.5. 6 and 7.  "Collisions with
> existing," hence 5.5.  We started to do this with CDPs at 8 and backed
> that out: they're not these.

I looked up COG> I don't see COG as an admin_level.  They are basically
like some combination school districts and regional planning agenceies.

Also, I don't believe in "states with no counties".  I do believe in
"county government dissolved".  Still, the counties as boundaries
continue to exist, and remain important, and shoudl still be
admin_level=6.  Many times interacting with the government you are
required to list your county.  And, almost everyone believes in county
boundaries and the notion of knowing which county you are in, even if
they don't collect taxes and have employees.

We also have the concept of ward and precinct as admin_levels, and I
have never seen these entities have any government functions.  They are
simply boundaries that determine how votes are counted or which poling
place you go to.  If they are legit as admin_levels, then counties with
no government are much more legit.

> Please, put the boundary in the map if you must and tag it
> boundary=COG and let's be done, please.  No admin_level value at all,
> unless we can tolerate seemingly endless discussion and maybe some
> heated argument, too.  Clifford hasn't the patience as loudly and
> clearly, patience is wearing thin.  If we must continue, let's be
> careful to keep it civil and scholarly if we can.

That's a very good plan.

The basic issue here is that admin_level has to have a clear hierarchy,
and once you talk about 12 kinds of regional things, that is clearly not
possible.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us