Why are townships, boroughs, towns, and cities in PA mapped with separate admin levels, or at least "supposed to be" mapped that way according to that page? As far as I know they're always only ever one level below county, and never overlap. i.e. you never have a town in the middle of some other township. There are plenty of smaller towns and villages that are unincorporated and just census-designated places, but these aren't administrative divisions and are mapped with boundary=census. So why should the various county subdivisions get differing admin levels? Plus, from what I've seen they seem to only ever be admin_level=8 anyway.
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 3:53 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea < [email protected]> wrote: > OK, three topics shake out from this, two Pennsylvania, one Boston. I'll > try (and likely fail) to be brief: > > 1) Pittsburgh's neighborhoods, now entered and tagged admin_level=9, seem > like they are better entered as admin_level=10, to harmonize with > neighborhoods in many other states. Boundaries with value 9 are "something > else," emerging as consensus (not necessarily fully entered into OSM, > though they could be in, say, New Orleans) for a city with BOTH wards as 9 > AND neighborhoods as 10, since we need to preserve the hierarchy between > the two. I propose that the Pittsburgh neighborhood polygons be changed > from 9 to 10 and that a "Neighborhood" entry at 10 be entered into > Pennsylvania's row in US_admin_level wiki's "Big Table" (I could change > them with a quick Overpass query-to-JOSM edit). Yes? > > 2) Pennsylvania's structure in the Big Table (the above notwithstanding) > is now: > > Pennsylvania-4, County-6, with City-8 directly subordinate to County-6, > Pennsylvania-4, County-6, Township-7, Village-8/Hamlet-8, > Pennsylvania-4, County-6, Borough/Boro-7, Town-8. > > However, we'll need to add Neighborhood-10 (assuming the answer to 1) > above IS "Yes") somewhere, at least to the City-8 sub-row as Pittsburgh is > a City. I doubt we need to add Neighborhood-10 to the Township-7, > Village-8/Hamlet-8 sub-row, but I could be wrong. What about the > Borough/Boro-7, Town-8 sub-row? Do THOSE have Neighborhood-10? (I doubt > it, but I could be wrong). City, yes. The others? Let's leave those > "N/A" for now. > > 3) > > On Jul 27, 2017, at 11:02 AM, Bill Ricker <[email protected]> wrote: > > Massachusetts looks correct in the small table to my eye in terms of > legal entities, Wards and Precincts are primary fine-scale legal entities. > I know my Ward and Precint numbers in Boston, so can confirm they exist. > > > > OTOH there are no "signs on the ground" for Wards or Precincts. > > > > As noted in Talk, there are also Council Districts but their mapping > onto Wards/Precincts will *change* for re-gerrymandering after each census > (which in Boston is an on-going process, we don't wait for Federal census > to count noses!) and could be easily abolished if we opted for all > city-wide seats again. Wards and Precinct boundaries are less flexible; > deeds reference them; Precincts are the fundamental unit that City, State > House, State Senate, US House district gerrymanders are built from; but > still even Ward&Precinct boundaries are adjusted periodically if a precinct > suddenly is built up or industrialized. > > > > Neighborhoods are also formally defined by city planning dept in Boston. > > So, Bill, Massachusetts' entry in the Big Table is a bit of a hack, since > we have: > Massachusetts-4, County-6, Town-8, Precinct-9 > Massachusetts-4, County-6, City-8, Ward-9, Precinct-10 > but in Ward-9 we say "Boston has Districts and Wards." > > As you say you can confirm that Boston has Ward and Precinct (which we > capture without Boston's exceptional mention), and (Council) Districts are > "mapped onto Wards/Precincts," can you clarify whether the Big Table needs > an entry for Boston for (Council) Districts? Where would that go? 9? > 10? Are there other cities in Massachusetts which do this? And as you say > that Neighborhoods are also in Boston, where do those fit into Boston being > 8, having 9 as Ward and Precinct as 10 (with perhaps Districts as a > "different 9" and perhaps Neighborhoods as a "different 10")? Or, perhaps > because these are so changeable (with regular re-districting) we simply do > not enter them, or enter them and perhaps leave them alone. Whew! > > Regarding signs: admin boundaries sometimes do have signs on the ground, > often do not, especially for 9 and 10 entities. OSM consensus seems to be > OK with saying that an admin boundary not clearly being delineated "in real > life" or being marked by signage everywhere "on the ground" is not really > sufficient reason to suppress these important map objects from OSM's > database. While it may seem controversial, I believe a strong argument can > be made that if we are defining and mapping admin_level=2, 4, 6 and 8, > because we also define 10, we might as well map 10 where it really exists > (often, big-city neighborhood councils are real things, with real > boundaries). > > I know OSM may never get type=boundary, admin_level=* PERFECT, but I'll > take "very good or excellent," as the US does seem to be getting there. > > Thanks, > SteveA > California > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
