[Talk-us] Differences with USA admin_level tagging
adamfranco at gmail.com
Tue Jul 11 14:40:27 UTC 2017
On the "Gores" point: In Vermont, while these do not have any
administrative infrastructure and are managed by the State, they *are*
surveyed and named places with defined borders (shared with their
surrounding Towns). As such it likely makes sense to preserve them as
multipolygons each with their own name and detail tags. Since these areas
are exclusive of Town/City areas, it might make sense to give them the same
admin_level even though the mechanisms of administration are different.
They aren't States themselves, so a border=administrative,admin_level=4
smells wrong. I can't speak to the situation in Maine.
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 7:39 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea <
steveaOSM at softworkers.com> wrote:
> Adam Franco writes his general agreement that Greg's assessment of
> Massachusetts applies to Vermont. As I compare these two rows in the
> table, they are identical at admin_levels 6, 7 and 8, differing only in
> Precinct and Ward at 9 for the former and Village and District for the
> latter. I do mention "Gores" (et al) in the Notes (specifically Note 18)
> as being best described as not part of any administrative division below
> the state (4) level. I believe the process you describe for tagging
> villages and towns in Vermont is correct (to the extent they are actually
> census or special-purpose districts, as for water/sewer), however be aware
> that when such entities are "incorporated" they most likely rise to the
> level of deserving of an admin_level tag. Adam, if any of that is not OK,
> please chime in.
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-us