[Talk-us] Census designated place boundaries: should we care about them?

[David ``Smith'']

Oops, forgot to fix the "to" field...

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Nathan Edgars II <neroute2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Usually a CDP is simply an arbitrary area drawn by the Census Bureau
> for statistical purposes. Does it sound reasonable that these should
> at least not be treated as ordinary boundaries, if not (carefully)
> deleted altogether where not based on actual administrative
> boundaries?

In Ohio, they're rather insignificant.  They have some value as
placenames, but their exact boundaries are fairly meaningless.  The
"standard" procedure for dealing with Ohio's CDPs is to remove tagging
pertaining to administrative boundaries, both on the relation, and on
the member ways (unless they are also part of real administrative
boundaries, of course).  The CDP then remains as just a
place=locality.

I wonder how many of Ohio's CDPs will get new boundaries with the 2010
census.  I've always been irked at how the Lake Darby CDP so poorly
matches the actual extent of residential development...

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

Does this font make me look fat?