Re: [Talk-us] Admin boundary level quirk in NYC
On May 19, 2013 4:31 PM, "Phil! Gold" wrote: > (which, I suspect, is why > NYC is currently mapped as admin_level=5). Well, that's what's in the specification in the wiki. But NYC is currently mapped as level 8 in OSM. Although now that I think about it, NYC does seem more functionally equivalent to an independent city like Baltimore or the various cities in Virginia. However, the counties still exist as purely geographical entities and shouldn't be left out. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Admin boundary level quirk in NYC
* John F. Eldredge [2013-05-18 09:49 -0500]: > You might want to take a look at how Virginia is mapped. Cities in > Virginia are not considered to be subordinate to counties, even if > surrounded on all sides by a county. >From what I've seen of Virginia, it seems to be mapped the way Maryland has Baltimore City: independent cities are considered to be coequal to counties and are mapped with admin_level=6, the same as counties. NYC is a little different in that the five boroughs are counties that are subordinate to the city (which, I suspect, is why NYC is currently mapped as admin_level=5). -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- The problem with using C++ ... is that there's already a strong tendency in the language to require you to know everything before you can do anything. -- Larry Wall --- -- ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Admin boundary level quirk in NYC
You might want to take a look at how Virginia is mapped. Cities in Virginia are not considered to be subordinate to counties, even if surrounded on all sides by a county. Towns, on the other hand, are subordinate to, and part of, counties. Greg Troxel wrote: > > So I propose a different schema: > > New York Boroughs: 9 > Cities (incl. NYC): 8 > Counties: 6 > > and have separate relations for the counties and boroughs (e.g. > Brooklyn > and Kings County), sharing the same ways. > > Your proposal sounds entirely reasonable to me. The notion that > cities > are contained within a county is baked into the hierarchical > organization, and something has to give when that isn't true. Letting > the hierarchy not line up seems better than choosing different levels. > > In the old way, there's the awkward question about how L5 should be > rendered, and why it should look different than L8, and that's all > unnnecessary mess. > > Your proposal defers the interesting choice to the renderer, which is > whether one cares about counties or boroughs, but such deferring is in > my view a feature. > > > > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Admin boundary level quirk in NYC
Clay, Thank you for bringing this up. I have a number of thoughts on this issue, so it may take me a bit to get to the proposal in your email. First, I think that this is a good illustration of why some of us would like all administrative data taken out of OSM and moved into another dataset. The maintenance of it is quite complex and even in areas where it seems objective, is not. Secondly, I think for any major area change, such as this, I'd like to suggest you touch base with the OSM US Import Committee, even though this is not an import, it will have similar effects as one (effecting a large, very populated area in many ways). Thirdly. I'd like to suggest you meet with other OSMers in NYC to discuss. Since we're having a mapping party next weekend, this seems like a good time to introduce yourself and discuss this proposal. Fourthly, I'm going to assume that your proposal is *just* to change NYC and the 5 boroughs, right? If not, then this needs discussion on a larger scale. Fifth, I have some concerns about granularity. By doing this, you've effectively made admin level 10 the last usable admin level that we currently measure. In your NYC example, 9 becomes the borough, but that means 10 has to be "neighborhoods" on a very gross level. For example, do you differentiate between Greenwich Village''s West and East Village? I certainly do, and I think most New Yorkers would, but they're both part of the Village itself. My other big question is "What does this solve?", in other words, what problem are you seeing that needs correction by this action? - Serge ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Admin boundary level quirk in NYC
So I propose a different schema: New York Boroughs: 9 Cities (incl. NYC): 8 Counties: 6 and have separate relations for the counties and boroughs (e.g. Brooklyn and Kings County), sharing the same ways. Your proposal sounds entirely reasonable to me. The notion that cities are contained within a county is baked into the hierarchical organization, and something has to give when that isn't true. Letting the hierarchy not line up seems better than choosing different levels. In the old way, there's the awkward question about how L5 should be rendered, and why it should look different than L8, and that's all unnnecessary mess. Your proposal defers the interesting choice to the renderer, which is whether one cares about counties or boroughs, but such deferring is in my view a feature. pgpbpQOHf4tav.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Admin boundary level quirk in NYC
In the entry for the United States in this wiki article: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative Admin levels are listed like this: Cities: 8 Counties: 6 New York City: 5 In the OSM database as I write this, this is not the case, as New York City is on level 8 with all other cities. Is there any case for this quirk? Certainly the counties (boroughs) do function as subordinate to the city, but technically the counties are now only geographical entities with no government, which happen to each share the same boundary as a borough with government subordinate to the city. So I propose a different schema: New York Boroughs: 9 Cities (incl. NYC): 8 Counties: 6 and have separate relations for the counties and boroughs (e.g. Brooklyn and Kings County), sharing the same ways. Level 9 is used similarly in other countries for sub-city governments. I think this would be a good use of it. Thoughts? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
