[Talk-us] Differences with USA admin_level tagging

Kevin Kenny kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com
Tue Jul 11 23:56:02 UTC 2017

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 7:47 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea
<steveaOSM at softworkers.com> wrote:
> I welcome and respect both of these perspectives, many, really and that can be challenging.  Minh's approach of "documenting what the map says" in the wiki steps in a certain direction in the wiki that I am not used to, yet I do embrace as valid.  I'm dancing with a lot here.  US_admin_level has channeled an in-depth version of "documenting consensus of what the map should contain as admin_level values for a given entry in the table."  And here is why.  And here are esoteric aspects with some history.  Minh said "clean that messy sausage up" (well, I paraphrase he did it nicely though it had and has a few sharp edges, but I am juggling it) and I concede that it is like watching how blood clots:  slowly and with bit of mess.

In many of the areas where I've tried to look at this, 'what the map
says' simply represents the guesswork of those who did the import of
administrative boundaries from TIGER.

I therefore accord it no more weight than I do to any other TIGER data
- a great thing at the time to eliminate vast tracts of blank space
from the USA, but to be accorded considerably less authority than the
work of any human mapper.

More information about the Talk-us mailing list