I’m reading this entire thread with interest because we don’t have most of these things in Oklahoma where I’m from, but I’m definitely familar with this one! If I’m not mistaken, the city limits of Tulsa extend over parts of three counties.
I actually have a question: we have townships in Oklahoma, but I think they’re mainly of historical significance; established during the original land surveying, and usually county boundaries go along township boundaries. The townships themselves have names, but they’re not known and used because all government functions are at the county level and city/town level. So in this case, OSM mapping consensus is to not map the townships, correct?
This article says every county abolished its civil township governments by the mid-1930s:
The article only speaks of the townships’ governments being abolished, but if it’s also the case that no government services are geographically organized by township, regardless of who administers them, then I suspect the boundaries are purely historical. Do you at least see any evidence of the townships on the ground, as in boundary signs?
As Oklahoma was surveyed under the Public Land Survey System, survey townships (named alphanumerically) probably continue to be used in property deeds, genealogy, etc., but that would be something other than a boundary=administrative. Mappers have occasionally asked about mapping PLSS boundaries, but the consensus in OSM is that parcel boundaries are out of scope, so maybe section and township boundaries would be out of scope too. They’d probably be better-suited to OpenHistoricalMap, where sources such as old topographic maps are more welcome and the “on the ground” rule is naturally a bit less strict.
I am aware of the alphanumeric codes such as T17N R5E and the like, but I’m sure I’ve seen historical maps that actually have names for townships too. However, I believe there is little to no remaining evidence of townships on the ground. I wouldn’t be surprised if one or two signs are still hanging on a century after they were erected, but I don’t recall ever seeing any.
Right, the article is discussing the civil townships, which had proper names. It sure sounds like a good thing to map in OHM. I’ve been planning to map California’s townships in OHM. There’s a very similar history there, except that one county still has official civil townships on the books (and only on the books). If you’re interested, let’s hop over to the OHM forum (requires an OHM account) to plan it out further.