Re: [Talk-us] admin_level and COGs, MPOs, SPDs, Home Rule
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 matters (e.g. when you register a vehicle, the DMV needs to know what town will be charging you property tax on it). The state is divided into 13 districts for courts, 4 of which exactly line up with 4 of CT's 8 counties: https://jud.ct.gov/directory/maps/JD/default.htm These courts are run by the state, though, so the court districts are not government entities any more than something like a DOT district would be. As you might guess, you report for jury duty only in the district where you live. The federal government definitely uses CT's counties for statistical purposes. Their borders are shown on census maps. Not sure about the GIS source you're referring to specifically. Connecticut's GIS data (https://portal.ct.gov/DEEP/GIS-and-Maps/Data/GIS-DATA) offers boundaries for both towns and counties, though they're separate shapefiles so I'm not sure how you'd say one is "between" the other and the state. It is worth noting though that maps published by the state often show town boundaries but not county boundaries (here's one example: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dpolicy/policymaps/ref/hwymap18ps-Final.pdf?la=en) - which makes since administratively speaking, the towns are more important. On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 10:36 AM Greg Troxel wrote: > > 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. Meanwhile ask any > > Connecticutter what COG they live in and most of them will probably > > answer "what's a COG". > > (t's nice to hear from someone in CT, as I have not really understood > things there, expect that it's obvious that the National Weather Service > thinks countries still exist.) > > Do you, as a CT resident, have to put down your county of residence on > any government paperwork, either state or federal? > > Or is there some notion that if a federal form asks for your county, you > can answer "That's a ridiculous question - CT has no counties" and that > is considered an OK answer? > > Do state forms uniformly decline to ask the question about county? > > How does jury duty work? When you are called, how are you sorted into > which courts you might ahve to go to? If you only have to go to courts > near you, vs the whole state, does that region align with historical > county boundaries? > > Does the federal government believe that there are no counties? Are CT > counties represented on the National Map and in the federal GIS > databases? > > Does the state of Connecticut publish maps or geodaata, and do they > think counties exist as an administrative thing between state and town? > > > (In MA, you are expected to put down a county, and jury duty is along > county lines - but we already established that MA still has counties > after talking about district attorneys, sherriffs etc.) ___ 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
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 idea that counties in CT should be tagged the same as they are in other states. On the most basic level, this is simply consistent - why should CT be tagged differently than elsewhere? But even on a more nuanced level... the average person isn't concerned about what government functions are or aren't associated with a 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. Meanwhile ask any Connecticutter what COG they live in and most of them will probably answer "what's a COG". Great current example of this, look at the state's reporting on covid cases: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/Coronavirus/CTDPHCOVID19summary5132020.pdf?la=en Page 2 shows current hospitalizations by county. No reference to COGs to be found. Thus, counties should retain their admin level tags, and COGs should be tagged less prominently. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Alaska Highway AK-2 tagging
On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 7:45 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 6:35 PM Anthony Costanzo wrote: >> >> All of AK 2 between Fairbanks and the Canadian border is paved. I can >> vouch for this personally. > > OK, so that's kinda putting more weight on the "primary" idea. Is most of it > a single carriageway freeway or a dual carriageway expressway? It's > been a long time since I've been there but i can't imagine it being more than > your typical middle-of-nowhere two-lane uncontrolled single > carriageway today. If that's the case, I feel like primary is the highest it > should be, and we should be considering more whether or not such a road > rises to primary instead of secondary (the lowest it should be, given it's > part of the primary state highway network in Alaska). Most of it is uncontrolled two-lane single carriageway. I don't have a strong opinion on whether the road is tagged as trunk or primary based on its own merits, however I do think the tags for the single-carriageway parts of AK 2 and YT 1 (and BC 97 for that matter) should match, whichever it is. These roads are functionally equivalent and physically similar. Given how these and other major single-carriageway roads in northern and western Canada are tagged as Trunk, tagging AK 2 as such would seem to be the option that defers to regional precedent. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 145, Issue 6
> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 18:21:59 -0600 > From: Paul Johnson > To: Joseph Eisenberg > Cc: "Eric H. Christensen" , "talk-us@openstreetmap.org" > > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Alaska Highway AK-2 tagging > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 6:18 PM Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > > I would use highway=trunk the whole way for consistency. In Canada the > > connecting highway is also highway=trunk. This makes sense because AK 2 is > > linking Fairbanks, the largest city in this part of Alaska, with All the > > cities in Canada and the lower 48 States. > > > > That's kind of my thinking as to why it should be primary instead of > secondary (as typical for the US for state highways). Almost all of it's > not even paved, it'd be a hard stretch to call it an expressway (trunk). All of AK 2 between Fairbanks and the Canadian border is paved. I can vouch for this personally. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 141, Issue 22
> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 07:09:25 -0500 > From: Paul Johnson > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 6:40 AM Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > > That's probably not relevant for anywhere in the USA (even in Alaska > > the main highways between cities are paved... right?) but it's a > > reminder that we can certainly choose to do things in a way that makes > > sense for mapping the USA; we don't have to use the British or German > > standards. > > > > The larger cities in southern Alaska. Most are gravel, including a paper > interstate. I think Alaska's the last state to still have gravel state > highways. Alaska does have gravel state highways, but the main road between Fairbanks and Anchorage (Parks Highway, AK 3) is entirely paved, as is the entirety of the Alaska Highway itself and the roads connecting it to Fairbanks and Anchorage. So the statement "the main highways between cities are paved" is still true. That said, no, Alaska is not the last state to still have gravel state highways. Vermont still has a couple (part of VT 121 is gravel, for example). Montana has quite a few, including one section of a primary route (MT 38 over Skalkaho Pass). Utah has at least one (UT 261's Moki Dugway segment). Further examples likely exist. As for the original subject that spurred this discussion... I agree with the general sentiment that for any classifications other than motorway (which for US purposes is treated as being equal to "freeway"), the road's network importance matters more than its geometry. It may be fine for some sections of former US 66 to be tagged as trunk if they still function as major through roads, but since most sections do not function as such their classification should be lowered to the level appropriate for the given segment. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
