Re: [Talk-us] TIGER place confusion
Thanks for the overpass query which really helps. As far as I'm concerned, you can remove the tag. Clifford On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:49 AM Max Erickson wrote: > Just comparing relations with place= tags to the corresponding nodes works: > > http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/CjI > > Obviously not an OSM place=city there. > > > Max > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] TIGER place confusion
Hi All - while learning about the US Census a few years ago, I found a slide set (pdf) called Understanding Place by Michael Ratcliffe. Geography Division of the US Census Bureau .. maybe something in that talk would shed light here.. I have a copy and can send it on request... probably findable on the open net. best regards from Berkeley -- Brian M Hamlin OSGeo California blog.light42.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] TIGER place confusion
Just comparing relations with place= tags to the corresponding nodes works: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/CjI Obviously not an OSM place=city there. Max ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] TIGER place confusion
Max, Can you give an example or better yet a overpass query that we can use to view some in our back yard? Thanks, Clifford On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 4:48 AM Max Erickson wrote: > Many of the administrative boundaries imported from TIGER have a > place= tag that reflects the legal type of incorporation of the > municipality rather than a sensible value for the OSM place tag (which > would give some hint about the relative prominence of the place). > > This confusion has gone under the radar, as openstreetmap-carto > doesn't render place labels from ways and relations: > > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/2816 > > Deleting the imported place= values (or perhaps moving them to some > other tag, say something like incorporation=) would directly make the > data more accurate and improve maps that render place areas without > accounting for the confusion in the data. > > What do people think about deleting (or adjusting) the place tag from > imported US administrative boundaries? > > > Max > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] TIGER place confusion
Use border_type=* for this. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:border_type Usage is spotty at best but it looks fairly consistent to me. For example in Pennsylvania admin_level=8 can have a border_type of city, township, borough, municipality(?), or town (there's just one "town"). In New York admin_level=7 can have a border_type of town or city, but I'm only seeing this on two cities and about a third of the towns. Since a combo admin+place has both a boundary and a label node, is there a rule of thumb for what tags go where? Does place=whatever go on both? What about wikidata? (?) border_type=municipality definitely came from TIGER, as it matches Bethel Park, Monroeville, and Murrysville having an LSAD of municipality. Pennsylvania's classification of home rule municipalities is a bit fuzzy, since it's *also* still considered to be a township or borough. I'll leave that one alone for now. On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:50 AM Max Erickson wrote: > > Many of the administrative boundaries imported from TIGER have a > place= tag that reflects the legal type of incorporation of the > municipality rather than a sensible value for the OSM place tag (which > would give some hint about the relative prominence of the place). > > This confusion has gone under the radar, as openstreetmap-carto > doesn't render place labels from ways and relations: > > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/2816 > > Deleting the imported place= values (or perhaps moving them to some > other tag, say something like incorporation=) would directly make the > data more accurate and improve maps that render place areas without > accounting for the confusion in the data. > > What do people think about deleting (or adjusting) the place tag from > imported US administrative boundaries? > > > Max > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] TIGER place confusion
Many of the administrative boundaries imported from TIGER have a place= tag that reflects the legal type of incorporation of the municipality rather than a sensible value for the OSM place tag (which would give some hint about the relative prominence of the place). This confusion has gone under the radar, as openstreetmap-carto doesn't render place labels from ways and relations: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/2816 Deleting the imported place= values (or perhaps moving them to some other tag, say something like incorporation=) would directly make the data more accurate and improve maps that render place areas without accounting for the confusion in the data. What do people think about deleting (or adjusting) the place tag from imported US administrative boundaries? Max ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
