Back to PTv2 for all LACMTA lines both in map data and wiki. Thanks for the heads up, they do put erasers on the ends of pencils for a good reason!

OK, I have re-read our route=subway and route=light_rail wiki and concluded that "0+" platforms is sufficient for a PTv2 route.

I have fixed subway routes (Red and Purple) both in the map and wiki and am in the process of fixing light_rail similarly.

However, I believe we REALLY should strive to enter into OSM every single one of these platforms as soon as possible.

I might be entirely wrong, but I believe that a PTv2 route must include all platforms and that a route with only (or primarily) "stations only" (no or few platforms) isn't a FULLY FORMED PTv2 route. I don't know how else to properly characterize such a thing (which LACMTA light_rail routes are right now) other than PTv1 routes.

It may very well be that these are "PTv1 routes which are in the process of (under construction in OSM towards) becoming PTv2 routes. But I don't believe OSM should tag them with public_transport:version=2 until they are FULLY FORMED and COMPLETE PTv2 routes. And they are not (quite) these, yet.

It seems you disagree, but I wanted to (quickly) reply and at least we could better establish our positions in the Discussion. I welcome a reply here and hope both of us recognize we might need a wider forum to make a determination about these "PTv1.5" routes. (I'm making that up as a shorthand to describe this situation).

Thank you, I'll do that.

You are welcome. However, simply removing the network=ncn tag, while accurate, is not sufficient to correct the problem of the data being aggregated into OSM. This is not a superrroute, it is merely a collection of relations which have nothing to do with one another.

{Please delete the relation.

This is not an ncn. Please remove it after reading osm.wiki/United_States/Bicycle_Networks and discovering what ARE such routes. I don't think it is even a network=rcn or even an lcn, it is so widely scattered. It appears to be an almost random collection of routes with no connectivity.

Cool. Thanks!

That might have been me. Please excuse my eraser crumbs and thank you for sweeping up after me!

Yes (and I don't want to start an argument), metro townships do have fewer powers, but they are not cities, which is what 8 denotes in Utah. In fact, Wikipedia says "A metro township is a type of municipal government in Utah equivalent to a civil township." As OSM calls US civil townships 7, it seems slam-dunk easy to say that they get 7.

As an aside, to be consistent with other states that put townships at admin_level=7, shouldn't 7 be the correct value for Utah's five metro townships?

Very kind of you; thanks much! And happy mapping to you.

Really, to describe sixty years of history here with two slightly differently tagged data (eight of these, nine of those) with fairly exact and well-constructed boundaries, that's pretty good work, really. Elegant, even. Calling one "relatively weak compared to other states" and the other "does all we need to do at this level of government" in footnotes, voilà. That's the way it is, right?

This has been proposed multiple times by now: tag counties admin_level=6 and keep boundary=COG on RCOG boundaries. That is what they are. For now. If this continuing narrowing of the scope like this continues (putting it now on eight or nine of these or those), we winnow in on a winner.

We craft some footnotes (as we have done and do) that explain that in CT counties are weaker and COGs do the administration that happens at this level. I feel like I'm wearing a white robe as I bear witness like this. I want to say it like it is.

1) This was not a mass edit. It was minor tag changing on 8 relations to comply with what we discussed, decided and documented in our wiki.

2) "Your" permission was not necessary, though it was solicited for several days in the Talk page of the wiki.

3) I have provided such evidence several times, going back to 2017 and 2012-13.

4) These are not my personal interpretations, there have been many Contributors besides me.

I have no idea what you are accusing me of, what is "my fault." "This behavior" and "this approach" are exactly what is prescribed: when somebody like Mashin changes both the map and the wiki contradictory to what is documented there, I tried to engage with him there to support his contradictory position. He did not, I changed his tagging to comply. It is not "to my liking," it is what the community achieved consensus about.

Anybody has a right to change another user's data in OSM, especially when two things about that are true: 1) The data contradict wiki or established consensus and 2) the changer of the data makes a good faith effort to contact and communicate with the author and persuade them of their error. I did both.

You misunderstand: I never "acted from power of DWG," I merely mentioned that the DWG (in the guise of SomeoneElse, as he is following these changeset comments) is already here. So your "I will have to escalate this issue" is moot: the issue is plenty escalated already.

When a county has little or no administration, as in Rhode Island (absolutely) and Connecticut (as in "only the judiciary"), then these counties being tagged without a boundary=administrative tag is correct.

EIGHT years ago, I myself suggested that a COG-like thing in California (where I live) might be (I posited it as "might" not "is," as you did) an admin_level=5. It was determined not to be and I and OSM accepted that. You seem bent on not accepting that, yet it is documented to be true.

Escalate away.

When a county has little or no administration, as in Rhode Island (absolutely) and Connecticut (as in "only the judiciary"), then these counties being tagged without a boundary=administrative tag is correct.

EIGHT years ago, I myself suggested that a COG-like thing in California (where I live) might be (I posited it as "might" not "is," as you did) an admin_level=5. It was determined not to be and I and OSM accepted that. You seem bent on not accepting that, yet it is documented to be true.

Escalate away.

When a county has little or no administration, as in Rhode Island (absolutely) and Connecticut (as in "only the judiciary"), then these counties being tagged without a boundary=administrative tag is correct.

EIGHT years ago, I myself suggested that a COG-like thing in California (where I live) might be (I posited it as "might" not "is," as you did) an admin_level=5. It was determined not to be and I and OSM accepted that. You seem bent on not accepting that, yet it is documented to be true.

Escalate away.

When a county has little or no administration, as in Rhode Island (absolutely) and Connecticut (as in "only the judiciary"), then these counties being tagged without a boundary=administrative tag is correct.
EIGHT years ago, I myself suggested that a COG-like thing in California (where I live) might be (I posited it as "might" not "is," as you did) an admin_level=5. It was determined not to be and I and OSM accepted that. You seem bent on not accepting that, yet it is documented to be true.

Escalate away.

When a county has little or no administration, as in Rhode Island (absolutely) and Connecticut (as in "only the judiciary"), then these counties being tagged without a boundary=administrative tag is correct.

EIGHT years ago, I myself suggested that a COG-like thing in California (where I live) might be (I posited it as "might" not "is," as you did) an admin_level=5. It was determined not to be and I and OSM accepted that. You seem bent on not accepting that, yet it is documented to be true.

Be my guest at "escalating this," although you should know that SomeoneElse (Andy Townsend, member of the Data Working Group and with a blue star next to his name) is already involved, contributing to these very Changeset Discussions: you can't get any more "escalated" than that.