[Tagging] [Talk-us] how to tag US townships?

[Anthony]

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 1:05 AM, Peter Budny <peterb at gatech.edu> wrote:
> Anthony <osm at inbox.org> writes:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Alex Mauer <hawke at hawkesnest.net> wrote:
>>> On 10/21/2010 08:06 AM, Anthony wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Greg Troxel<gdt at ir.bbn.com>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> So if we have whole-multiple-counties=5 (eg
>>>>> NYC) county=6 township=7 city/town=8 then it would make sense
>>>>> everywhere.
>>>>
>>>> What would be an example of a township that would be at admin_level=7?
>>
>> This question of mine was quoted but still not answered.
>
> To summarize/quote from
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_divisions_of_the_United_States

[snip]

> So in at least some cases, there's a need for admin_level=7 to
> express the hierarchy correctly.

What would be an example of a township that would be at admin_level=7?

I'm not saying you're wrong.  I just couldn't come up with an example.
 The townships that I've seen which overlap with cities/towns aren't
administrative areas, they just settlements.

>>>> So...if they don't do that much, should they be mapped as admin_level?
>>>>  I was told that school districts don't count, because they don't do
>>>> enough, which has me totally confused as to what it is we're supposed
>>>> to be mapping.
>>>
>>> It’s not about whether they do that much; it’s about whether they’re
>>> administered by a government.  School boards are a part of the government
>>> yes, but they’re don’t govern the districts that they cover.
>>
>> Absolutely they do.
[snip]
> Because they are specialized, rather than general-purpose, I don't see
> how school districts belong in admin_level=.

Fair enough, but that's a completely different argument from "they
don't govern the districts that they cover".

I'm not sure what "general-purpose" means, either.  There are a lot of
counties, as pointed out, which don't do much of anything (in fact,
there are a lot of counties that don't do anything at all).

> What Anthony wrote seemed quite clear.

Thank you.