Somehow I sent this to talk-us instead of imports-us. Sorry about that.
--
[email protected]
Minh (Randy, Phil and wider community):
I read both. An excellent discussion which properly belongs in both,
in my opinion. "Tightening up" (better defining) geopolitical
divisions in the USA seems to be around "ongoing emerging" in OSM,
and Minh has made many formidable formulations, contributions,
conclusions and solutions.
This discussion is fascinating in the fifty states, as admin_levels
[2,4,6,8] (national-state-county-city) aren't one-size fits all here.
There are "gloms" at 5 like New York City and talk about MPOs
(Metropolitan Planning Organizations) being "new layers of
government" (e.g. a blending of federal funding and often
multi-county area of significant population). In addition to MPOs
there are other "newer government" entities, glomming around township
levels and rather distinct political subdivisions that I believe OSM
might valuably capture as accurately as possible. Minh and Randy and
many others are on to something, this discussion is important.
Some of this might be voting districts, some of it is zoning or
census. I sense Minh and I agree that census data are often vague
and only sometimes helpful. Around here, we found a zoning approach
to largely mesh well (in an accurate and visually pleasing way) with
mapnik landuse from a countywide import (oh, and won a Gold Star from
BestOfOSM.org).
This discussion contributes mightily to those efforts and endeavors.
It is important to listen and contribute here, as this can channel a
national consensus. While it may seem trivial to discuss admin_level
as "meaning anything" in the real world, such semantics looking at
themselves in the mirror is a helpful discussion. It helps make OSM
powerful. Take care with our commons, our shared fabric map. It can
be fragile, it is not a dumping grounds. When and as it is carefully
crafted and curated with excellent data, especially as it may (and
does) channel a national consensus, it becomes a useful place and
tool. Let's use it well, let's get it right. As right as we can
with good discussion that is wide and seeks harmony.
Confusing the map for the territory or perhaps getting close? The
map asks us to do well here. The intent seems to be: we shall.
Good discussion builds good stacks, protocols and therefore,
understandings.
Fine project we have here, ladies and gentlemen! Needs some work
(partly this, here), but that feels great!
Steve
(who very much appreciates this valuable map -- I contribute to it)
California
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
