I think it's a good idea but needs a good idea for the tagging with these different combinations and dividing. neighborhood names are common in other cities too and well known to locals. So it is valuable info for osm and should be rendered too. currently some are added as place nodes and also rendered as such. having them as an area is even better. sure there will be debates about exact boundary but over time either osm converges to the locally used ones or osm will tell people where they are and they may get used to follow osm
On 16 Jun 2010, at 6:13 , Ben Welsh wrote: > At the risk of over complicating things, let me give a little more info. > > LA County is a fragmented place with many different cities and unincorporated > areas puzzled together. Our "neighborhoods" are in fact three different types > of areas consolidated. > > 1. Cities divided into neighborhoods. i.e. > http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/city/los-angeles/ > 2. Complete cities, drawn by their formal boundaries. i.e. > http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/neighborhood/west-hollywood/ > 3. Unincorporated areas that are "Census Defined Places": > http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/neighborhood/east-los-angeles/ > > On top of that, there are dozens of small unincorporated areas that are > basically islands floating between everything else. We've lumped them in with > a bordering neighborhood: > http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/unincorporated/list/page/1/ > > Why did we throw all these together and call them neighborhoods? Because our > goal is to have a single common denominator we can spread across the entire > county and use for comparison. That's why we build them out of Census tracts, > so we could rack up demographics about them all. i.e.: > http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/income/median/neighborhood/list/ > > As time goes on, we plan to divide up all of the cities into smaller > neighborhoods, not just Los Angeles, we did in a first round last year. In > cases where cities have official hood boundaries (LA does not) we'll likely > use those. > > More info about the project and process is here: > http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/about/ > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 5:23 AM, John F. Eldredge <[email protected]> wrote: > This sounds like a good compromise to me, as most people will have a general > agreement of where a given neighborhood is located, but differ about where > the boundaries are located. > > -- > John F. Eldredge -- [email protected] > "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to > think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ed Avis <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 08:46:09 > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] > Q: Is OSM interested in neighborhood and r > egional boundaries for L.A.? > > A compromose would be to add the centre of each neighbourhood (as > locality=place > or similar) but not the exact boundaries. > > -- > Ed Avis <[email protected]> > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > > -- > palewire.com > work: 213-473-2624 > cell: 213-254-5570 > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
