[Talk-us] admin_level and COGs, MPOs, SPDs, Home Rule

[stevea]

On May 8, 2020, at 12:09 PM, Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com> wrote:
> My point is that in Massachusetts, counties are real in that the
> government expects you to know what county you are in, and there are
> signs. Many state government functions are lined up with these counties
> - it's just that the people are state employees instead.  The federal
> government believes in counties - they are used to organize lots of
> things even if the counties have no taxing and spending.  So they really
> are a political subdivision, even if they have zero government
> functions.
> 
> We in the Massachusetts local community want to have admin_level 6
> relations for these boundaries, and I personally consider deleting them
> to be vandalism.

I'm not in Massachusetts, but as I constantly strive to improve my listening skills, so I ask you to please point out any flaws in my understanding of this.  I'm literally quoting from Footnote 18:  "Geographically divided into 14 counties, Massachusetts effectively has no county government in eight of them, similar to Rhode Island. This means in these eight counties (Berkshire, Essex, Franklin, Hampden, Hampshire, Middlesex, Suffolk and Worcester), all government administration is at state (4) and local (8, 9) levels. However, several functions implemented by the state are organized by county lines, including District Attorney, Sheriff and the judiciary."

I believe the six counties WITH "county government" deserve boundary=administrative, admin_level=6.  I believe the eight counties WITHOUT "county government" deserve border_type=county (and no admin_level key-value pair whatsoever).  I wholeheartedly agree with you that removing / deleting / altering the "county boundaries" (and there are two kinds, as our wiki and I describe them here) besides these tagging schemes is vandalism.

The federal government certainly does "believe in" counties, it (via the Census Bureau, USGS and other agencies that refer to them) categorizes them in sometimes slightly-different ways than OSM does.  (We say so in our wiki, and why, and point out that we also align with the Census Bureau in certain circumstances, like CCCs, for the most part).  It also describes many other "things" (like Census County Divisions and many flavors of Statistical Areas) which OSM happily ignores.  In fact, the federal government even disagrees with itself:  the Census Bureau and USGS divide the USVI into either two or three county-equivalents (take your pick).  So, OSM must make its own decisions, based on its own definitions.  Often, OSM and the federal government agree on these things.  Sometimes, not quite.  That's OK, especially as we recognize this, point it out and explain why.  I think we do OK here.  The distinctions can be subtle, but they are explainable, so we do.

Wow, people still have patience to discuss this!

SteveA