"Paul Norman" <[email protected]> writes: >> From: Richard Welty [mailto:[email protected]] >> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Admin borders in the US: CDPs >> >> the latter, i think. there are parts of the US where the CDP boundaries >> do contribute to the map. > > I think there's two different cases that need to be distinguished between. > One is where there are counties or other similar administrative structures, > the other is where there are not.
If what you mean lines up with 1) in some areas, CDP boundaries actually have some relevance, and people know where they are and use for things. In those areas it makes sense to have them in OSM. 2) in some areas, CDP boundaries are merely for the census, not understood or known about by more than a handful of government people, and have almost no real-world relevance. In those areas the CDP boundaries shouldn't be in OSM. then it sounds good to me. I live in a type 2 area, where every bit of land is in both a city/town and a county. (I realize that in Alaska there are some areas where CDPs seem to matter.)
pgpW6dhg2Imvo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
