Changeset: 146051534
Connecticut counties are political (not administrative) and/or geographic, COGs are administrative county-equivalents (says the Census Bureau)
Closed by stevea
Tags
created_by | JOSM/1.5 (18907 en) |
---|---|
source | US Department of Commerce harmonizing with OSM's definitions of boundary=political and boundary=administrative |
Discussion
-
Comment from Minh Nguyen
Oh nice, I was worried I’d have to start a whole discussion about doing this, but you took care of it already.
Are you sure boundary=political is the best tag for the counties? As I understand it, that tag is for things like congressional districts and electoral wards, which so far we’ve refrained from mapping. As far as I can tell, Connecticut’s vestigial counties don’t have any electoral purpose either. Rather, they remind me of England’s ceremonial counties, which appear to be tagged as boundary=ceremonial. But I think there’s more momentum behind boundary=historic for this sort of thing.
For the new planning region boundaries, the names of the COGs should be in operator=*, not official_name=*, and I think border_type=planning_region would be less confusing. The planning region is the service area of the COG, not the COG itself. By analogy, we don’t tag Australia as official_name=Government of Australia.
-
Comment from stevea
I am not sure boundary=political is best, it is a dart on the board, and not on the bullseye. It may be boundary=historic works, this is all very liquid. I think this needs a wider discussion medium than the narrow bandwidth of a changeset comment. I welcome a new topic in the USA section of our Discourse forum.
This all seems do-able, but it always benefits more from a wider, deeper audience. So, while you might choose to "worry," tossing it to a wider discussion is prudent. I wouldn't say I "took care of it," I "hit the dartboard but not the bullseye."
If you think border_type=planning_region can stick (and now that you mention it, I can see this sticking widely across many states), it's beginning to roll down the track of getting nailed together. We lay down some track here and continue with wider discussion.
- Comment from Minh Nguyen
Relations (17)
- New Haven County (276212), v39
- Hartford County (1839541), v40
- Litchfield County (1839542), v42
- Fairfield County (2516994), v45
- Middlesex County (2554043), v25
- New London County (2554044), v44
- Tolland County (2554045), v27
- Windham County (2554046), v26
- South Central Connecticut Planning Region (11065394), v16
- Greater Bridgeport Planning Region (11065395), v8
- Western Connecticut Planning Region (11065396), v12
- Northwest Hills Planning Region (11065509), v10
- Naugatuck Valley Planning Region (11065529), v10
- Lower Connecticut River Valley Planning Region (11065862), v11
- Southeastern Connecticut Planning Region (11065863), v32
- Northeastern Connecticut Planning Region (11065864), v19
- Capitol Planning Region (11065880), v19
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |