On May 8, 2020, at 4:58 AM, Greg Troxel <g...@lexort.com> 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 think that is a settled question (as of summer 2017); these deserve boundary=COG (MPO, SPD...). Do RCOGs (or COGs) in Connecticut deserve boundary=administrative? I personally think not (and our wiki reflects that, despite Mashin's "case closed" to the contrary). However, for Mashin's benefit (and the greater good of the truth of what OSM should BEST do), I invite more-scholarly (as I think we need it) political science-based further Discussion. I've "run out of intellectual gas" and that's the best I can suggest beyond my limitations. > 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. There are boundary=political taggings (I think) which I believe are more-appropriate for things like voting districts. I would very much like us to sharpen up these distinctions, too. But that might be "minor" considering what I'd say is a more-major issue of RCOGs in Connecticut (as a perhaps-one-off exception to "no COGs as administrative," as perhaps being county-less makes this a quirky something-else that IS administrative, I really don't know, but I invite further Discussion). >> 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. > > That's a very good plan. Thank you very much for saying so! > 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. Yes: I refer to calling Connecticut RCOGs as administrative "letting a genie out of a bottle," as then we have a rainbow of not-really-full-spectrum governments (federal=2, state=4, county=6, city=8 ARE "full-spectrum") that need careful categorization by political scientists savvy about how admin_level both works and is supposed to work. That is a can of worms. Maybe somebody wants to work on that, I have about reached my limits. Many others who express impatience have, too. If there is an argument to be made that Connecticut RCOGs "have a clear hierarchy," Mashin has (only begun, in my opinion) to make it and it needs to be FURTHERED by addressing the "limited powers" aspects of these RCOGs. That is a wholly unspoken conversation, and so, (to quote the Soup Nazi): "no admin_level for you." Maybe in the future with (currently, unmade) supporting arguments, but "not today." If you've read this far, I deeply thank your patience with this topic. SteveA _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
