Bill Ricker, this is in regards to your comment "Ward and Precinct not having
elective officers nor staff of government, but are accepted as admin_level=9
and 10 respectively; likewise Neighborhood admin_level=10, Unincorporated
community admin_level=8 need not have officers nor staff."
It may
I don't recall ever having been asked to put down county of residence
on a federal form, though if I was I would have named the county I
lived in rather than leaving it blank. State forms ask for town of
residence if they ask for any such thing, since there are
administrative reasons why this
Thank you Bill Ricker for the deep, thoughtful and researched background and
weigh-in on Connecticut and Rhode Island county status. I'm now leaning in the
direction of Greg Troxel that Rhode Island may indeed have counties which are
administrative, though I withhold my final judgement (and it
Bill Ricker writes:
> A manufactured armchair consensus, however long on a Wiki, may still be
> wrong on the ground.
This point bears more complicated dicussion, but I think it's clear that
something that was rough consensus in a general sense has been
misrepresented to become a hard rule and a
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 10:42 AM Greg Troxel replied:
Frederik Ramm writes:
> > I didn't even want to weigh in on the discussion, mine was more a
> > comment on process. You shouldn't delete something that has been there
> > for 10 years and then say "btw let's discuss" ;)
>
> Agreed. Also, I
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
Frederik Ramm writes:
>
> I didn't even want to weigh in on the discussion, mine was more a
> comment on process. You shouldn't delete something that has been there
> for 10 years and then say "btw let's discuss" ;)
Agreed. Also, I think OSM has a defer-to-locals notion, and people far
away
Anthony Costanzo writes:
> county. CT's counties have no associated government (anymore) but they
> are still commonly used for statistical purposes and they still have
> cultural relevance as well - you will hear references in casual
> conversations to Fairfield and Litchfield counties.
stevea writes:
> Except, and I don't mean to split hairs needlessly here, a "county" in
> 46 states (or 48 if we count county-equivalents in Alaska and
> Louisiana) isn't the same thing as a county in two (Rhode Island and
> Connecticut). So, in the above scenario when you describe "using them
Due to some discussion between Minh, Martin and I on the Talk page of United
States admin_level, we seemed to agree that restoring admin_level=6 to
Connecticut counties is reasonable. I did so, and made minor changes to the
wiki to outline why.
SteveA
Hi,
On 5/15/20 23:12, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> I also think that it makes sense to have counties as admin_level=6 in
> Connecticut and Rhode Island, if local people still know their counties
> and the governments still recognize them for geographic, statistical and
> some other legal purposes.
I also think that it makes sense to have counties as admin_level=6 in
Connecticut and Rhode Island, if local people still know their counties and
the governments still recognize them for geographic, statistical and some
other legal purposes.
-- Joseph Eisenberg
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 1:42 PM
(3d attempt, apologies if you should get this several times)
Hi,
I am tempted to revert stevea's removal of the admin_level=6 from
counties (where this was in place for the last 10 years or so, eg
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1839542/history) until a
consensus is found that they should
The divisions and subdivision definitions are an ISO Standard, like threads
on nuts and bolts. And the 'politics' are the very least important aspect
of making the distinctions, because vast amounts of networks ( computers,
logistics, air travel ) rely on common understanding of these. Also
re Cycling Association
-Original Message-
From: Anthony Costanzo
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 1:15 AM
To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] admin_level and COGs, MPOs, SPDs, Home Rule
Going to chime in here as someone who has lived the majority of his life in CT.
I am quit
Going to chime in here as someone who has lived the majority of his life in CT.
I am quite familiar with CT's 8 counties and their geographic forms.
But I only have a vague idea what a COG is and couldn't have told you
offhand anything about where the boundaries between them are.
I support the
I just edited a OSMwiki page and apparently that hurt him so much that
immediately started heated discussion claiming his rules to be OSM
community rules. And as an act of retaliation he went on and changed my
data and data of other users to his liking. I don't know how to correctly
name this.
I
On May 12, 2020, at 8:43 PM, wrote:
> Butting in for my *long* two cents:
I appreciate you doing so.
> Please correct me if I'm wrong in characterizing boundary=administrative like
> this; I'm still not sure that I've nailed it down.
I'd say (and for the many-th time, I'm not a political
Butting in for my *long* two cents:
I've lived in Rhode Island all of my life, until I moved to Boston for college.
When I was younger and dumber (read: fifteen), I discovered the admin_level tag
and thought, "Hey, why isn't my county admin_level=6? It says on this list that
US counties are
Note that vandalism in OSM and similar project is considered as
something that is not only damaging but also malicious and
intended to be damaging.
In cases where you consider other mapper as mistaken and
wrong, but not malicious - consider using other terms.
See
On May 11, 2020, at8:28:48 PM PDT, Martin Machyna wrote:
> I am just going to paste here what I wrote on Slack and I as well consider
> removal of counties from admin_level=6 as vandalism.
It is not vandalism, it is an established, consensus-driven, years-old tagging
principle, fully
I am just going to paste here what I wrote on Slack and I as well consider
removal of counties from admin_level=6 as vandalism.
Pasted text:
My argument would be to not take boundary=administrative in a strict sense
of government, but use it to tag all the areas that are part of the
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
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,
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
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
>>
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,
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
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
stevea writes:
> The topic is active again at
> https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_admin_level#Recently_added_Connecticut_COG_.28Regions.29_as_5_and_CDP_as_10_should_be_deleted
> and seems to need the assistance of seasoned political scientists who
> can say whether a COG in
On May 7, 2020, at 5:32 AM, Clifford Snow wrote:
> Steve,
> I don't have the patience to put up with discussions about admin levels. As
> you know they can drag on forever. I did post a link to the discussion on the
> Connecticut Slack channel. Maybe that will get more people involved.
>
>
Steve,
I don't have the patience to put up with discussions about admin levels. As
you know they can drag on forever. I did post a link to the discussion on
the Connecticut Slack channel. Maybe that will get more people involved.
Good luck,
Clifford
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 11:31 PM stevea wrote:
If you fancy yourself (or know one!) a political scientist steeped enough in US
law, history and politics sufficient to discuss subtle, nuanced topics like
Home Rule and Dillon's law, a Discussion in our wiki could use your wisdom and
guidance.
As the OSM community in USA discussed
33 matches
Mail list logo
