[Talk-us] An admin_level for CDPs?
steveaOSM at softworkers.com
Tue Jan 1 22:18:11 GMT 2013
>On 12/31/12 5:12 PM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
>>I'd argue that not all governmental boundaries need to be tagged as
>>boundary=administrative. In Ohio, we've started to retag CDP
>>boundaries with boundary=census and place=locality but without
>>admin_level.  They still show up in Nominatim as localities.
>this is approximately what i was thinking should be done with CDPs.
This sounds workable to me, as well. It is agreeable that CDPs not
have an assigned admin_level, I was opening this for discussion to
see if there might be wider consensus. CDPs *are* created by the
Bureau of the Census, but the *SAs are not, they are created by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
It *does* beg the question of what *should* be tagged as
boundary=administrative *and* have an admin_level tag. For example,
my local University of California campus has a polygon tagged
boundary=administrative, border_type=university (and
amenity=university + name=*). Might/should it also be tagged
admin_level=4? Even though it partially overlaps (and largely is in)
City Limits, it *is* an administrative unit of state government
(neither city/local nor county) with its own police, fire and
health-care infrastructure, its own planning and development
functions and a recent lawsuit (since dismissed) between it and its
"host" city, proving it and the city are different entities.
The same question (admin_level=4) might also be asked about
California State Park boundaries...but they are *already* tagged with
admin_level=4, so at least there is precedent (thanks, Apo42) for
state-level "units" with specific administrative boundaries to be
tagged with admin_level. I'd like that to become widespread among
all 50 states, which also implies national parks get tagged with
admin_level=2. State/national parks and state universities really do
have their own administrations, and this implies an admin_level tag.
>>In states that give civil townships some authority, they are much
>>more important to the identity of an unincorporated area than CDPs.
>>The TIGER boundary import excluded Ohio townships, so Vid the Kid
>>and I have been painstakinglly filling them in.
>i have started filling in Towns in upstate NY as well. i don't mind
>identifying the Hamlets in some manner, but all they consist of
>typically is a boundary drawn by the Census, and some
>green-and-white signs posted by the NYS DOT in traditional locations
>by the road side. there's no government there, whereas the towns
>maintain roads, provide the framework for the volunteer fire
>districts, have a zoning & master plan functions, inspect buildings
>& construction, and so forth.
What I found useful to do around here (where there are CDP polygons
entered from TIGER, but they have no admin_level tag) is to add a
point tagged hamlet=* or village=* or town=* (but not necessarily
suburb=* as that implies city subordination, nor city=* as that
implies incorporation) to the "approximate center point" of the CDP
polygon, along with a name=* tag that matches the name of the CDP.
This point might logically be a mathematical centroid, but I have
found it more useful to place this point at a more culturally
significant point in the "human center" of the community designated
by the CDP. Usually this is at or near a significant crossroads,
where there might be a market, a church, a school, a small commercial
district, or the like.
What I am hearing: there are many polygons in OSM with the tag
boundary=administrative, but it makes sense for only some of them to
have an admin_level tag. (This seems odd, but gets solved in the
case of CDPs having their boundary=administrative tag changed to
boundary=census). We agree on nation, state, county and city (2, 4,
6, 8), but there really are other polygons upon which we might
appropriately add an admin_level tag, state parks being one of them.
CDPs, no, but changing their tag from boundary=administrative to
boundary=census seems a good idea. And for other *SAs designated by
the OMB (not the Bureau of the Census)? What about those?
Finally, while there seems to be no argument that New York City is 5,
and LAFCos in California are 7, what about MPOs? These are a odd
blend of where a locality's transportation planning agency wants to
qualify for federal money, so they create an MPO per federal Code
which qualifies them for it. This MPO becomes a de facto and de jure
administrative boundary, for both local and federal reasons,
effectively bypassing state-level government. Do we want to assign
MPOs an admin_level tag in OSM? (I'm guessing no, but I feel the
need to offer due diligence that at least this question was asked).
More information about the Talk-us