[Talk-us] CDPs and admin_level

David ``Smith'' vidthekid at gmail.com
Mon Oct 12 22:59:40 BST 2009

On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Greg Troxel <gdt at ir.bbn.com> wrote:
> Should the various admin_level boundaries expect to be a hierarchy?  I
> would think that no city is split into two countries.  In the US where a
> what-people-think-of-as-city is split into two states, I think all cases
> hvae separate cities on the sides of the state line.
> Why is CDP different from UPS delivery zone, or zip code, or any other
> division by some other entity?
> Maybe CDP shouldn't be the same kind of political boundary tag and
> instead something else, like us_census_boundary and then be related to
> PMSA, SMSA, etc.

I won't dispute that line of thinking.  In that case, maybe we should
do something like

for other countries)


boundary=postal, addr:postcode=*

and even, where we have the data,

boundary=lot or boundary=parcel or boundary=property

Regarding the first bit, I imagine some kind of standardization may
occur in the future to replace statistical_unit the way admin_level
replaced border_type.  Regarding the second bit, why isn't this done
already?  Still, I'm thinking both of these approaches merit creating
full-blown proposals on the Wiki.

There's a concern in my mind about what to do when a single way is
used as both an administrative and a statistical boundary, or some
other conflict with the boundary=* key.  My guess would be,
administrative trumps postal trumps statistical trumps lot.  Tagging
on multiple relations would make the data complete.

David "Smith"
a.k.a. Vid the Kid
a.k.a. Bír'd'in

Does this font make me look fat?

More information about the Talk-us mailing list