[Talk-us] IR boundary tagging

[Martijn van Exel]

Insightful maps!
If this were reality, then why don't the official boundary files from
Census look like this? I don't think we should be changing our
admin_boundaries just yet.

On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Paul Norman <penorman at mac.com> wrote:
> On 2014-06-24 6:50 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>>
>> > Do you propose cutting the areas out of the states, i.e. so that IRs
>> > are not in any admin_level=4 relations? That's what you have to do if
>> > you're fitting IRs into the admin_level hierarchy.
>>
>> No, since the states often have agreements for limited jurisdiction over
>> things like continuing state highways and providing some services,
>> particularly in less fortunate nations that struggle to provide basic
>> services themselves.  They're overlapping jurisdictions, typically.
>
> To keep the admin hierarchy, you need to cut the areas out of the states.
> The admin hierarchy is broken if you don't. You've been saying, for example,
> that someone is in the Lummi Nation (http://www.osm.org/relation/1606799),
> and not in Washington State.
>
> Contracting for some services is not unique - I've seen small villages
> do it for basic services where they contract from nearby larger places.
>
> I took TIGER data and produced data showing what some states would look
> like: https://gist.github.com/pnorman/30244b2984216285735d
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

-- 
Martijn van Exel
http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
http://openstreetmap.us/