[Talk-us] CDPs and admin_level

Greg Troxel gdt at ir.bbn.com
Mon Oct 12 15:56:44 BST 2009


Anthony <osm at inbox.org> writes:

> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Greg Troxel <gdt at ir.bbn.com> wrote:
>> Another question is if these CDPs should be rendered on the default map;
>> I'd say no.  Would a renderer without special knowledge of admin_level
>> render them or ignore them?  Perhaps bogus arguments, but as a thought
>> experiment I think they make the point that these regions are
>> fundamentally different from what we think of as admin_level.  (And thus
>> worthy of a different tag.)
>
> Don't forget that admin_level is a border tag and not a region tag.
>
> Personally I don't think we should have mass imported the CDPs in the
> first place.  In some areas they are useful.  In other areas they
> aren't.  They were created by the Census Bureau to deal with their
> particular needs, and I don't think those needs overlap enough with
> OSM.  Where I live I'd prefer to use the neighborhood boundaries
> designated by my county property appraiser.  I'm not sure if the
> Census Bureau used them for their CDPs or not.  I've seen some pretty
> much match up, but I haven't done an exhaustive check.
>
> After the County/Parish/Borough level (which would be nice to move up
> a notch, painful though it may be), why don't we let each state work
> out the details?  In New Jersey, it'll probably be a lot easier than
> in Florida, because New Jersey is 100% incorporated, while Florida is
> mostly unincorporated.  These administrative regions differ greatly
> from state to state.  Treating all of the US the same is nearly as bad
> as treating all of the EU the same.

I think you are right on ther.

> As an aside, I'd like to have property borders show up as a very light
> gray, similar to the way Google Maps now displays property borders in
> the US (the areas I've checked, anyway).  Can I use admin_level=12 for
> that?  Please, be kind, don't throw anything at me for making that
> suggestion.

I agree with the rendering intent.  But I'd make them not
boundary/admin_level because they are different.  I believe that in Mass
lot lines can straddle town boundaries - but I'm not 100% sure.
They are definitely not political boundaries though.

So how about

boundary=lot

to denote an area which is registered as a unit in a registry of deeds,
or the equivalent.

A related need might be to group contiguous lots under common ownership
which are treated as one logical lot.

-------------- 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/talk-us/attachments/20091012/777ed1c5/attachment.pgp>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list