stevea <stevea...@softworkers.com> 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
