[Tagging] Fuzzy areas again: should we have them or not?

[stevea]

On Dec 23, 2020, at 4:36 PM, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Seems like a lot more work than my method.  Drive from outside the city
> to the city.  Where you encounter a sign saying "Welcome to <city>" is
> where the city starts/ends. ;)

I think Paul gets this one correct.  These "municipal boundaries" (USA term) are quite specific (as in "metes and bounds," what survey professionals might use to record land measurement) and are made available to the widest public extent possible, having been an important part of the city's charter from its parent state (the City of Los Angeles and the state of California, for example).  To change these "city limits" (it happens) the city must "annex" (by election, law, city council, support by the People in the City...) additional property in its city limits (rarely, less, "de-annexation" happens).  Signs to delineate these boundaries are somewhat frequent where they meet roads (especially major highways/motorways/freeways, expressways, trunks, primary roads...), as Paul notes.

GIS departments have become more frequent in the last ten, twenty years here, to the point that essentially all such data (especially municipal boundaries) are essentially always available from a county or state GIS department, from which such data may be considered authoritative.  Many libraries (public, university, private) have these data, too.

It's "slam dunk easy" for me to agree, in the USA, from which I am able to speak as a learned citizen all my life.  YMMV.

SteveA