Insightful maps! If this were reality, then why don't the official boundary files from Census look like this? I don't think we should be changing our admin_boundaries just yet.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Paul Norman <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2014-06-24 6:50 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: >> >> > Do you propose cutting the areas out of the states, i.e. so that IRs >> > are not in any admin_level=4 relations? That's what you have to do if >> > you're fitting IRs into the admin_level hierarchy. >> >> No, since the states often have agreements for limited jurisdiction over >> things like continuing state highways and providing some services, >> particularly in less fortunate nations that struggle to provide basic >> services themselves. They're overlapping jurisdictions, typically. > > To keep the admin hierarchy, you need to cut the areas out of the states. > The admin hierarchy is broken if you don't. You've been saying, for example, > that someone is in the Lummi Nation (http://www.osm.org/relation/1606799), > and not in Washington State. > > Contracting for some services is not unique - I've seen small villages > do it for basic services where they contract from nearby larger places. > > I took TIGER data and produced data showing what some states would look > like: https://gist.github.com/pnorman/30244b2984216285735d > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- Martijn van Exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ http://openstreetmap.us/ _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
