<div dir="auto">I was adding addr:county tags to help me process towns when importing addresses from MassGIS: I thought that there might be towns with same names in different counties, so to avoid errors I was using County&Town identifier. If there are any other ways to uniquely identify towns in MA, I'm OK about deleting addr:county.<div dir="auto"><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Feb 24, 2020, 7:10 AM <<a href="mailto:talk-us-massachusetts-request@openstreetmap.org">talk-us-massachusetts-request@openstreetmap.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Send Talk-us-massachusetts mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:talk-us-massachusetts@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">talk-us-massachusetts@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us-massachusetts" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us-massachusetts</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:talk-us-massachusetts-request@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">talk-us-massachusetts-request@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:talk-us-massachusetts-owner@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">talk-us-massachusetts-owner@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of Talk-us-massachusetts digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Admin boundary tagging (Wayne Emerson, Jr.)<br>
2. Re: Admin boundary tagging (Greg Troxel)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2020 11:30:02 -0500<br>
From: "Wayne Emerson, Jr." <<a href="mailto:ibemerson@verizon.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">ibemerson@verizon.net</a>><br>
To: Massachusetts List <<a href="mailto:talk-us-massachusetts@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">talk-us-massachusetts@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>
Subject: [Talk-us-massachusetts] Admin boundary tagging<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:c227e849-d55d-65c7-cf40-2fe3d245b531@verizon.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">c227e849-d55d-65c7-cf40-2fe3d245b531@verizon.net</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed<br>
<br>
1. Our admin boundary relations have an addr:county=* tag which gets <br>
flagged by JOSM as suspicious. While updating boundary geometry should I <br>
remove these tags? Why was this tag added?<br>
<br>
2. Also some boundary relations have a place=town/city tag. But all <br>
cities & towns also have a node with this same tag. It seems to be the <br>
node that is used to render the town name in OSM-Carto. Is it wrong to <br>
duplicate place=* tags on both the place node as well as the boundary <br>
relation?<br>
<br>
3. Sometimes both boundary relation & place node will be tagged with <br>
wikidata & population tags. The most common scheme seems to be to put <br>
the wikidata on the relation, and put the population on the place=* <br>
node. Anyone have different ideas on this?<br>
<br>
4. When I update boundary geometry with the new Sept 2019 MassGIS data, <br>
I had been putting source on changeset. But now I wonder if putting <br>
source tag on lines also might be helpful.<br>
<br>
Thanks, - Wayne<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2020 11:47:07 -0500<br>
From: Greg Troxel <<a href="mailto:gdt@lexort.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">gdt@lexort.com</a>><br>
To: "Wayne Emerson\, Jr. via Talk-us-massachusetts"<br>
<<a href="mailto:talk-us-massachusetts@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">talk-us-massachusetts@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Talk-us-massachusetts] Admin boundary tagging<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:rmiwo8dqmic.fsf@s1.lexort.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rmiwo8dqmic.fsf@s1.lexort.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain<br>
<br>
"Wayne Emerson, Jr. via Talk-us-massachusetts"<br>
<<a href="mailto:talk-us-massachusetts@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">talk-us-massachusetts@openstreetmap.org</a>> writes:<br>
<br>
> 1. Our admin boundary relations have an addr:county=* tag which gets<br>
> flagged by JOSM as suspicious. While updating boundary geometry should<br>
> I remove these tags? Why was this tag added?<br>
<br>
Basically I think you should be very cautious to believe JOSM warnings<br>
that aren't really obviously correct. Thanks for bringing it up here. <br>
<br>
I am not clear on how addr:foo on boundaries leads to implicit<br>
addressing in terms of inheritance from objects inside, both in theory<br>
and in practice. That would be good to understand to figure out how to<br>
proceed.<br>
<br>
While counties in MA definitely really exist, contrary to some the<br>
thinking of some deletionists, my understanding is that addresses, as<br>
used either by state/local government or the USPS, do not contain<br>
Counties as part of the address.* This is different than Ireland for<br>
example, where the county is part of the addresss (and functions in some<br>
ways like a US state, but in some ways not).<br>
<br>
*In MA, you very definitely have to know what county you live in, as it<br>
is required to be put on government forms of various kinds, and it also<br>
shows up in deeds. But I don't see it in addresses.<br>
<br>
So given all of this, the addr:county tags sort of feel like they are<br>
likely not really the right thing, but I really feel that I don't<br>
understand well enough to give that as advice.<br>
<br>
> 2. Also some boundary relations have a place=town/city tag. But all<br>
> cities & towns also have a node with this same tag. It seems to be the<br>
> node that is used to render the town name in OSM-Carto. Is it wrong to<br>
> duplicate place=* tags on both the place node as well as the boundary<br>
> relation?<br>
<br>
My understanding, slightly fuzzy, is that there are two almost<br>
completely logically separate things going on as fundamental geography<br>
concepts:<br>
<br>
One is admin boundaries, which is about government jurisdiction etc.<br>
<br>
The other is place names, which is about names people have for places<br>
that have populations (or not), and in general place names refer to<br>
sort of a point and the area around it with no real clear sense of<br>
boundary.<br>
<br>
In MA, all land is in some town, so we end up with the same word being<br>
both a place name and a boundary name, and unless you are being pedantic<br>
about geography nobody really worries about which one you mean because<br>
it's usually clear by context. They are sort of the same thing, but not<br>
quite. And then we get place names that have no boundaries, like "West<br>
Acton", which is very hard to say where it ends. This doesn't have an<br>
admin boundary becuase there is government distinction, but the village<br>
is well known and everyone knows where it is -- but not where it ends.<br>
<br>
I believe that best practice in OSM is to have a node with the place<br>
tag, separate from the boundary, and then to have a relation which has<br>
the boundary as one member an the place as the admin_centre member.<br>
Which is not quite right, as the town hall might not be at the place<br>
that the locals would put the dot on the map when asked "where should<br>
this town label be shown".<br>
<br>
> 3. Sometimes both boundary relation & place node will be tagged with<br>
> wikidata & population tags. The most common scheme seems to be to put<br>
> the wikidata on the relation, and put the population on the place=*<br>
> node. Anyone have different ideas on this?<br>
<br>
I am really not sure. I find that population on a place= tag is<br>
semantically troubled as a place= tag does not have a defined extent and<br>
therefore it is not meaningful to talk about how many people are in it.<br>
<br>
Overall this feels like it would belong on the relation that contains<br>
the boundary and the admin center.<br>
<br>
> 4. When I update boundary geometry with the new Sept 2019 MassGIS<br>
> data, I had been putting source on changeset. But now I wonder if<br>
> putting source tag on lines also might be helpful.<br>
<br>
OSM practice for multiple years has been to put source data on the<br>
changeset only, and not to have source data on any of the objects in the<br>
database. So what you are doing sounds exactly right.<br>
<br>
It would be great if someone were to check that all our country<br>
boundaries were intact.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Subject: Digest Footer<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-us-massachusetts mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-us-massachusetts@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Talk-us-massachusetts@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us-massachusetts" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us-massachusetts</a><br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
End of Talk-us-massachusetts Digest, Vol 41, Issue 5<br>
****************************************************<br>
</blockquote></div>