[Tagging] fire district boundaries

[Greg Troxel]

> admin boundary levels 9 & 10 are unused in the US.
>
> i see some usage of level 9 for fire district boundaries in the US.

I don't think we should use 9/10 for fire/school/etc.  Those are not
necessarily subsets of admin_level 8.  If a state has a formal notion of
something less than town (neighborhoods? as Boston and Newton have) as a
*unit of government in general*, then that makes sense for 9.  But there
can be a dozen kinds of districts besides fire, like school, water,
sewer, and so on.   So the fire district isn't really a
political/governing boundary in the same way.

In Massachusetts, firefighing is by town, with a dozen+ mutual aid
districts that I think are mostly sets of towns.  So I can see tagging a
boundary "Massachusetts District 14", or some kind of ref tag with
name/number, and having to make up a scheme for each state's way of
doing this.

So I think admin_level=9 is wrong for this, and there should be

* boundary=fire_district name="name of district"
  Used for entities that have a set of firefighting companies normally
  under command command and dispatch, and act in many ways similar to a
  town or city department, but with a geographic area of responsibility
  that is not a town.

* boundary=fire_mutual_aid_district name="mutual aid scheme"
  Used for an area within with there are city/town fire departments or
  fire districts, and among which there is a plan for mutual aid.  A key
  difference between this and fire_district is that there is not
  typically common dispatch and command among the district.


A not super clear example is the mutual aid districts sort of listed
here:

  http://scan-ne.net/wiki/index.php?title=Middlesex_County_Fire_Departments

Basically each city/town is in exactly one district.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20121122/480c60d5/attachment.pgp>