[Talk-us] LAST CALL - Retagging of place nodes in NewYork State

[Kevin Kenny]

On Sat, Sep 3, 2022 at 1:58 AM Minh Nguyen <minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us>
wrote:

> It looks like you've accounted for the cases where the Census Bureau
> designated a CDP corresponding to a hamlet by tagging the boundary
> relation with border_type=hamlet;CDP. This implies that the relation
> would also be tagged boundary=administrative;census, which would
> probably trip up most consumers of boundaries.
>
> I think it would be better to tag the boundary relation as just
> boundary=administrative border_type=hamlet. If you care about
> statistical boundaries in OSM, you could then model the CDP as a
> separate boundary=census relation that shares the same member ways. You
> can tag that relation with border_type=CDP to distinguish it from
> another kind of census boundary, for example, census county divisions
> (CCDs), which are found in states that don't subdivide counties into
> townships or similar.
>

OK, I can fix that in a separate pass. (As I said, _consistently_ wrong is
the best kind of wrong when it comes to tagging!)

What I could do that would be even simpler would be to remove the '`;CDP`.
I don't think I have any hamlets mapped that aren't CDP's. The Census
Bureau tries hard to track minor civil subdivisions, even ones that don't
have home rule (wards of cities and the like).  I haven't created parallel
`boundary=census` objects for cities, boroughs, towns, and villages. I had
only two cases for parallel objects sharing the same border: consolidated
town/villages (admin level 7/8), and the five boroughs of New York City
(admin level 6/7 - boroughs are also counties, but three of them have
different names as counties than as boroughs).

In any case, this is a separate issue from how to tag the `place=*` nodes.
-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20220903/a581d708/attachment.htm>