Proposed double-entry of Consolidated City-Counties

[willkmis]

@ZeLonewolf

I would be fully on board with making all of the consolidated cities and independent cities admin_level=8. I think these are “more like” cities and towns more commonly tagged =8 than counties. But, this isn’t a hill I’d die on.

To clarify, I definitely think there should be an admin_level=6 boundary consisting of San Francisco. I think there should also additionally be an admin_level=8 boundary, or something that denotes both levels, as I see no reason why it has to be just one or the other. But if I had to choose, I think 6 alone is better than 8 alone, in large part for the reasons @Minh mentioned.

@ZeLonewolf

I am curious whether by this logic, if we would promote Washington (of Washington, D.C. fame) to admin_level=6. After all, it is the sole division of the admin_level=4 District of Columbia.

@Minh_Nguyen

I think we were starting to consider it as a boundary=place, which skirts this issue entirely. But if we keep it as boundary=administrative, then I don’t see why not.

Again, there is no sense in which “Washington” is any kind of administrative boundary. If we want to make one up, I don’t think it matters much which level we set it at. I suppose it depends if you want to lean more into “Washington is perceived as a municipality” or “counties should be space-filling”, neither of which really apply in the District due to its unique status.