[talk-au] Local Government Areas without Councils

[Warin]

The only person against having them in level 6 is you .
I and others see no reason why the wiki cannot be widened to include them.

On the tagging list I have been told it is ok to use the 'landuse' tag 
on water at sea .. just to give some comparison.


On 13-Jan-17 12:08 PM, Andrew Davidson wrote:
> On 13/1/17 11:51, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
>> I agree with this. The difference between unincorporated or not could be
>> added by a new tag to indicate
>
> Or we could not break the model and use a different admin_level.
>
>> , could be determined from the name,
>
> Thus requiring the data consumer to parse the name to determine if 
> something is or isn't a local government area.
>
> > or from
>> the operator tag which links to the legal entity.
>
> I had a look at this. Of the 409,000 admin boundary relations in OSM 
> there are 52 with an operator tag. After discounting the ones where 
> people should have used the short_name tag and the ones where someone 
> had put school districts in at admin_level 11, you are left with about 
> 10. As far as I could tell by trying to search for these entities they 
> are all examples of someone putting in things at the wrong admin_level 
> or things that they wanted to appear on the map and then trying to fix 
> that by putting an operator tag on.
>
>> The wiki just says LGA border (eg. Shire/Council) for level 6. If you're
>> worried we could just add eg. Shire/Council/Unincorporated).
>
> It actually says:
>
> "Local Government Authority Border (e.g Shire/Council)"
>
> Unincorporated is not a "Local Government Authority"
>
> Plus I think Local Government Areas are useful things to have in OSM, 
> what admin_level do you suggest we set aside for them?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au