[Talk-us] TIGER 2022 PLACE dataset

[Matthew Whilden]

I've been doing a lot of mapping small towns and it sounds like CDP
boundaries would be helpful for bounding Overpass queries and the like. But
I also have no sense of if they are generally more useful than admin
boundaries.

Matt

On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 12:19 PM Zeke Farwell <ezekielf at gmail.com> wrote:

> I've been working on place=town, place=village, and place=hamlet
> classifications in Vermont and thinking about how CDPs may be helpful to
> this effort.  The town of Milton has a place node
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/622776905>, a boundary=census
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/199120> (CDP), and a
> boundary=administrative <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8897021>.
> The administrative boundary represents the area that the Town of Milton
> government has authority over.  The place node represents the built up area
> that is considered a town.  Here I use "town" in the small t sense of a
> built up area rather than the large T sense of an official government.  The
> CDP area represents the same thing as the place node, but as an area
> instead of a node.  While I don't see a huge problem with mapping a
> place=town|village|hamlet as an area (likely based on a CDP area), I
> believe the standard layer won't display a label.  Other than that, having
> both a node tagged place=town and an area tagged boundary=census seems like
> duplication to me.  They even both link to the same wikidata item
> Q1789757.  For a map renderer to effectively use the CDP area, they'd need
> to de-duplicate so they don't get two Milton labels.  This could probably
> be done, but I'm not sure if any data consumers are prepared to actually do
> this.
>
> Side note: does anyone know of an interactive map of 2020 census data that
> shows CDPs with their population?  I've found a map that show population by
> census tracts and a map that shows CDPs, but not the populations of the
> CDPs.
>
> https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/data/interactive-maps.html
>
> Zeke
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 2:24 PM MoiraPrime via Talk-us <
> talk-us at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> Now that I think about it... if a census designated place... is
>> *designated* by the census, and the census is the one giving us the
>> data, that sounds like it's the most verifiable and accurate data you can
>> get. Am I wrong here? 🤔
>> On 1/19/2023 11:03 AM, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote:
>>
>> I personally wish we would stop re-defining perfectly working dictionary
>> words.  I understand that sometimes the word used in a *tag* has to include
>> a broader or narrower concept to make mapping work.  But a boundary that
>> comes from an authoritative data source is perfectly VERIFIABLE.  It is not
>> OBSERVABLE on the ground, and let's not mix those things up.  A boundary is
>> a boundary because some political authority or authorities say it is.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 2:57 AM stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Nice, Elliott.  +1 to everything!
>>>
>>> Things in OSM get mapped because "they are real enough to verify."
>>> NEARLY ALL of the time, that's because "well, everybody can see them."
>>> (Including the mapper who did).  With boundaries, no, we must wave our
>>> hands in the air a bit here.  We must talk about these in terms of "already
>>> agreed upon" so that we can "well state them, like on a map."  Today, we
>>> find that reality really very good, even excellent, but it has its
>>> real-world "can't do that, border is in dispute" or "despite our best
>>> efforts since 1905 (pick a date), the two (maybe more) countries cannot
>>> seem to come to agreement about exactly where a or the boundary line is."
>>>
>>> Census boundaries are not that, they are "wobbly, numerically-defined
>>> things" that change, and rapidly.  They are essentially stale as quickly as
>>> they are published.  They exist for a reason, as they are a snapshot of a
>>> something.  Very much depending on local variability and reasoning (and the
>>> reasons change everywhere we go) a census boundary might or might not be
>>> "agreeable" to remain in OSM (sometimes for reasons closer to OSM,
>>> sometimes for reasons closer to "the people on the land who say so").
>>>
>>> This a social process, where sometimes "local rules dictate" and
>>> sometimes "that's the method the rest of the world uses."  Where and how
>>> that unfolds seems to be a constant saga in OSM.  Certainly more often than
>>> not, a harmonious method is found and applied.
>>>
>>> Realize:  "deep rabbit holes exist" and "sometimes people disagree" and
>>> "I stand corrected, I regret my error" and "that's how that should be
>>> tagged around here" and "that's how the rest of the world tags" and "well,
>>> that's true, but there are exceptions..." are all true.  At the same time.
>>> It's not rancor or disharmony, it is discussion.  More often than not, it
>>> becomes harmonious.  Really, we are harmonious.  There are skirmishes on
>>> edges, yes, and we grow.
>>>
>>> And a great many people say "that's a pretty good chunk of map data we
>>> have here, OSM," nodding our heads.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Talk-us mailing list
>>> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20230119/12662682/attachment.htm>