Local vs regional road connections

[muon2]

To revisit one of my original questions, I'm going to look at my King CDs from two different plans. Here's the map of King subunits using cities first then filling in by school district.



This was my initial plan.


I've slightly adjusted the lines to conform with the subunits, removed the Kitsap macrochop, and I've zoomed on CD 10 showing the links cut by the boundaries.


The local links cut within King are in yellow and the regional links to Kitsap and Pierce are red following state highways and the ferry.

The erosity of the King districts becomes
CD 7 erosity = 10
King-Kitsap : 2 links (ferry)
King-Snohomish :  2 links (Snohomish is macrochopped and Shoreline links to two separate subunits)
King-King CD8 : 3 links (Shoreline and Seattle to Lake Forest Park, link to Mercer Island)
King-King CD10 : 3 links (from Seattle)

CD 8 erosity = 25
Snohomish-Snohomish : 6 links (not shown)
King-Snohomish : 2 links (Bothell and Woodinville)
King-King CD7 : 3 links
King-King CD10 : 11 links (in yellow)
Kittitas-Chelan : 1 link
Kittitas-Grant : 1 link
Kittitas-Yakima : 1 link

CD 10 erosity =18
King-King CD7 : 3 links (in yellow)
King-King CD8 : 11 links (in yellow)
King-Pierce : 4 links (in red)

Removing the duplicate cuts counted within King, the total erosity of the three is 36.

[muon2]

The other map I posted was a Dem pack of CD 10 designed to make a competitive CD 8. I thought it looked pretty erose, but without subunits it was technically less erose then my first version.



Connections to other counties don't change, so here's the recomputed erosity.

The erosity of the King districts becomes
CD 7 erosity = 10
King-Kitsap : 2 links (ferry)
King-King CD10 : 8 links (in yellow)

CD 8 erosity = 40
Snohomish-Snohomish : 6 links (not shown)
King-Snohomish : 2 links (Bothell and Woodinville)
King-King CD10 : 25 links (in yellow)
King-Pierce : 4 links
Kittitas-Chelan : 1 link
Kittitas-Grant : 1 link
Kittitas-Yakima : 1 link

CD 10 erosity = 35
King-Snohomish :  2 links
King-King CD7 : 8 links (in yellow)
King-King CD8 : 25 links (in yellow)

Removing the duplicate cuts counted within King, the total erosity of the three is 52. Using subunits the plan is significantly more erose the original offering.

[muon2]

Here's a detailed application for a Snohomish CD. The county is big enough to require a macrochop, so here's the subunit map using school districts except for those areas in incorporated munis which take precedence.



Because there is a macrochop there are three links to Skagit from separate Snohomish subunits, 1 link to Island by ferry, 1 link to Kitsap by ferry, and 6 links between Snohomish and King subunits.

One rule is that all units, or subunits when macrochopped, must be connected. In order to connect to the Skyhomish school district subunit in King, CD 8 has to include the Index and Sultan school districts in Snohomish. It can then use the Monroe school district to connect back to the rest of King. Here's an illustration with the school district boundaries shown with black lines, except for beige lines when they pass through an incorporated muni like Monroe or the part of Everett that is for its water reservoir.



I've used red and pink lines to show links between subunits across the county line, with red for those on the border between the two districts and pink for an internal link. I've used yellow lines for local links between the districts within Snohomish. Note that the Monroe SD was chopped, but the chop line along the river has no bridge so there is no link between those two pieces of Monroe SD.

To get the erosity for the dark blue CD 1 which is entirely within Snohomish, I add the 5 links to Skagit, Island and Kitsap, the 4 links between the Snohomish CD and King (two links to Shoreline are not on the detailed map), and the 6 yellow links cut within Snohomish. The total erosity is 15.

There are some open questions here. I used a brute force approach that created a link to an unincorporated SD if there was a connection to population in the SD. That ignored the idea of the node for the SD. I did that here to illustrate that this division of the subunits, typically put the SD node inside a muni subunit. The Monroe SD offices are in the city of Monroe, so any path to the SD node forces one through the city technically invalidating the path. That doesn't make much sense so I've looked at links to the largest population VTDs within those unincorporated subunits.

That brings up a second issue. The Woods Creek part of the Monroe SD is contiguous but disconnected from the rest of the SD, but only because the city is a separate subunit. In this illustration I allowed connections to it independent of the rest of the SD. It gets more complicated since the Maltby area is contiguous but disconnected as well, even keeping the city of Monroe in the SD for connection purposes. I show a link from the Northshore SD to the west of Maltby, but maybe it shouldn't exist since one can't get from Northshore SD to the Monroe SD offices without going through part of the Snohomish SD.

[Torie]

Here's a detailed application for a Snohomish CD. The county is big enough to require a macrochop, so here's the subunit map using school districts except for those areas in incorporated munis which take precedence.



Because there is a macrochop there are three links to Skagit from separate Snohomish subunits, 1 link to Island by ferry, 1 link to Kitsap by ferry, and 6 links between Snohomish and King subunits.

One rule is that all units, or subunits when macrochopped, must be connected. In order to connect to the Skyhomish school district subunit in King, CD 8 has to include the Index and Sultan school districts in Snohomish. It can then use the Monroe school district to connect back to the rest of King. Here's an illustration with the school district boundaries shown with black lines, except for beige lines when they pass through an incorporated muni like Monroe or the part of Everett that is for its water reservoir.



I've used red and pink lines to show links between subunits across the county line, with red for those on the border between the two districts and pink for an internal link. I've used yellow lines for local links between the districts within Snohomish. Note that the Monroe SD was chopped, but the chop line along the river has no bridge so there is no link between those two pieces of Monroe SD.

To get the erosity for the dark blue CD 1 which is entirely within Snohomish, I add the 5 links to Skagit, Island and Kitsap, the 4 links between the Snohomish CD and King (two links to Shoreline are not on the detailed map), and the 6 yellow links cut within Snohomish. The total erosity is 15.

There are some open questions here. I used a brute force approach that created a link to an unincorporated SD if there was a connection to population in the SD. That ignored the idea of the node for the SD. I did that here to illustrate that this division of the subunits, typically put the SD node inside a muni subunit. The Monroe SD offices are in the city of Monroe, so any path to the SD node forces one through the city technically invalidating the path. That doesn't make much sense so I've looked at links to the largest population VTDs within those unincorporated subunits.

That brings up a second issue. The Woods Creek part of the Monroe SD is contiguous but disconnected from the rest of the SD, but only because the city is a separate subunit. In this illustration I allowed connections to it independent of the rest of the SD. It gets more complicated since the Maltby area is contiguous but disconnected as well, even keeping the city of Monroe in the SD for connection purposes. I show a link from the Northshore SD to the west of Maltby, but maybe it shouldn't exist since one can't get from Northshore SD to the Monroe SD offices without going through part of the Snohomish SD.

Your King County erosity count works well, showing the need for artificial subunits, which is kind of obvious really.

I am totally lost on your brute force stuff. Do you do that sort of thing often to your poor students?  Are you talking about road connections here? Is your problem that you demand state highway connections throughout a CD? I oppose such a requirement myself, and only look for pavement between subunits. Absent pavement, you are just going to have to chop to create a pavement connection. I remember when playing with this area, that Monroe was indeed a problem child, and that was with my map where I was applying my bridge chop rule, which nixed the map that you are playing with, with I think should not be on the pareto optimal frontier.

Anyway, I need help with your issues here. My IQ is in a lower bracket than yours, but then you already knew that.

[muon2]

There are some open questions here. I used a brute force approach that created a link to an unincorporated SD if there was a connection to population in the SD. That ignored the idea of the node for the SD. I did that here to illustrate that this division of the subunits, typically put the SD node inside a muni subunit. The Monroe SD offices are in the city of Monroe, so any path to the SD node forces one through the city technically invalidating the path. That doesn't make much sense so I've looked at links to the largest population VTDs within those unincorporated subunits.

That brings up a second issue. The Woods Creek part of the Monroe SD is contiguous but disconnected from the rest of the SD, but only because the city is a separate subunit. In this illustration I allowed connections to it independent of the rest of the SD. It gets more complicated since the Maltby area is contiguous but disconnected as well, even keeping the city of Monroe in the SD for connection purposes. I show a link from the Northshore SD to the west of Maltby, but maybe it shouldn't exist since one can't get from Northshore SD to the Monroe SD offices without going through part of the Snohomish SD.

To define a connection one must say what points are connected. The only connection from Woods Creek to High Rock within the Monroe school district passes through the city of Monroe. Nominally that seems ok since the school district board meets in Monroe city. So linking the Sultan SD to the Monroe SD is actually tracing a path that starts and ends in cities that are separate subunits from the rest of the school district. It requires a rule such as

Connections are defined based on paths between the nodes (seats of government) associated with the subunits. When the node for an unincorporated area is in a separate subunit based on an incorporated muni, the path between nodes can include those associated munis and still be considered to be within the unincorporated subunit.

That allows the Sultan SD to connect to the Monroe CD on either the north of south side of the river since roads are available on both sides. However, there are no roads, state highway or local, that connect between Maltby and High Rock that stay within the borders of the Monroe SD. That means there is no path that connects the node for the Northside SD in Bothell city to the node in the Monroe SD in Monroe city that stays in those two school districts. So should the link from Northside to Monroe near Maltby be eliminated?

[Torie]

To define a connection one must say what points are connected. The only connection from Woods Creek to High Rock within the Monroe school district passes through the city of Monroe. Nominally that seems ok since the school district board meets in Monroe city. So linking the Sultan SD to the Monroe SD is actually tracing a path that starts and ends in cities that are separate subunits from the rest of the school district. It requires a rule such as.

I don't get the starts and ends bit. But what I am wondering about is whether one needs pseudo nodes for school district districts where their node is in a separate subunit. Your highway cuts on the north side seem appropriate. The highway from North Sultan to Monroe is cut. I don't get the horizontal yellow line, and that yellow line with a right angle that are connecting the black lines. I assume that has nothing to do with highway cuts, but is just filling in the otherwise fragmented black lines.

Connections are defined based on paths between the nodes (seats of government) associated with the subunits. When the node for an unincorporated area is in a separate subunit based on an incorporated muni, the path between nodes can include those associated munis and still be considered to be within the unincorporated subunit.

That allows the Sultan SD to connect to the Monroe CD on either the north of south side of the river since roads are available on both sides.

I still don't understand this. If a highway is cut, it's cut. I don't see a road on the south side of the river. If there isn't one, your map is illegal. If there is one, and it were the most direct route to Monroe from North Sultan, you would not have the double highway cut.

However, there are no roads, state highway or local, that connect between Maltby and High Rock that stay within the borders of the Monroe SD. That means there is no path that connects the node for the Northside SD in Bothell city to the node in the Monroe SD in Monroe city that stays in those two school districts. So should the link from Northside to Monroe near Maltby be eliminated?

I don't know where Northside or Bothell City are, but if there are no road connections from Canyon Creek to Monroe, there should not be a yellow line there, and the yellow line between Cathcart and Maltby seems duplicative of the yellow line on the west side of Monroe. I would eliminate both yellow lines. Putting all that aside, the real issue is whether pseudo nodes should be created for school district fragments that have no node because it lies in a separate city, or in the other fragment on the other side of a city. That can be finessed here, but it cannot be finessed if Monroe is in one CD, and the balance of the school district in another CD. Yes, Woods Creek is in another CD, but one can just pretend that Monroe doesn't exist for the road cut. But if Monroe were in the purple CD, and the rest of the school district in the blue CD, we have a problem. The school district ex Monroe is node-less. We don't want erosity measurements to be affected by whether the school board meets inside a separate city, or outside it, do we?

Again, is there pavement between North Sultan and High Rock that does not go through the purple CD? If not, you map is illegal. And here I thought you were the pavement guy, and I have been the one who has advocated not getting too fussy about what kind of pavement. But I thought we both agreed that you need some kind of pavement.

[muon2]

There is a presumption that a geographic unit (county or subunit) is all internally connected when it is whole even if individual areas are not. Camano Is is part of Island county even though it's connected to Snohomish not the rest of Island. All of our maps that have a whole CD in Snohomish would be invalid if this were not true. I visualize it as the whole of Island carrying Camano with it when Island is linked to a district.

By the same token all of Monroe SD is presumed to be internally connected, even though there are actually four separate disconnected but contiguous pieces.

Let me repeat here the definitions of nodes and connections.

A political unit can be represented by a node that is the political center of that unit. For a county the node is the county office where the elected officials meet. For a city or town the node is the city or town hall. For a precinct the node is the polling place. Units are connected based on the path that connects their nodes.

Two units are locally connected if there is a continuous path of public roads that allow one to travel between the two nodes without entering any other unit. Local connections can include seasonal public roads. A local connection path can be traced over water without a bridge if there is a publicly available ferry that provides part of the connection. Units smaller than a county must be locally connected within a district.

There is often more than one possible path to connect to nodes. For both local and regional connections the connection between two units is considered to be based on the path that takes the shortest time as determined by generally available mapping software.


Erosity measures severed connections, not cut highways.

For a school district the node is the district office. I would introduce a clarifying rule here. If the node is in a different subunit, then tracing a path through the subunit that includes the node does not invalidate the path as a connection. This would be a useful rule in VA, too, with independent cities that host county offices.

When a subunit is chopped (but not macrochopped) then each part of the chop functions as a new subunit for determining connections. If the piece of the subunit has the node of the subunit then that becomes the node of the chopped piece. If a piece of the subunit doesn't have the original node then the node is defined as the most populous place in that piece (which could be a village or a precinct). That's how we've done it in other states (like MI).

[muon2]

So on to the particulars ...



In this example Sultan SD is connected to Monroe SD by way of US-2. When Monroe SD is chopped as shown the connection along US-2 is severed. The remainder is still connected to Sultan SD by way of Ben Howard rd which runs along the south bank of the Skykomish river from Sultan to Monroe.

My concern is whether or not there should be a connection that I show going west from Maltby. If all of Monroe SD were together then there would not be a connection there because to get from Monroe SD offices to points west of Maltby one most go through the Snohomish SD along WA 522.

The rule I cited above says that if a chopped piece doesn't have the original node then the node is defined by that largest place in the chopped piece. Maltby is the largest Census Defined Place in the Monroe SD so once it is chopped, Maltby becomes the node for that piece. That means the link west of Maltby exists.

But what then of the connection to Sultan? It existed at the time of the chop but then vanishes if I reset the node to Maltby. It doesn't make sense to eliminate that valid connection just because of the form of the chop - that invites gaming the rules. If you can follow all of that, I'm looking for insight from other eyes to see a way out of the paradox.

Actually the easy way out is to chop the Maltby part out to CD 1 and leave the Woods Creek part in CD 8. They are close enough in population for it to work, and the paradox is resolved. I've posed this precisely because the paradox may appear in other settings and not have an easy way out.

[Torie]

There is a presumption that a geographic unit (county or subunit) is all internally connected when it is whole even if individual areas are not. Camano Is is part of Island county even though it's connected to Snohomish not the rest of Island. All of our maps that have a whole CD in Snohomish would be invalid if this were not true. I visualize it as the whole of Island carrying Camano with it when Island is linked to a district.

By the same token all of Monroe SD is presumed to be internally connected, even though there are actually four separate disconnected but contiguous pieces.

Yes, when whole, but the subunit in question was chopped.

Let me repeat here the definitions of nodes and connections.

A political unit can be represented by a node that is the political center of that unit. For a county the node is the county office where the elected officials meet. For a city or town the node is the city or town hall. For a precinct the node is the polling place. Units are connected based on the path that connects their nodes.

Two units are locally connected if there is a continuous path of public roads that allow one to travel between the two nodes without entering any other unit. Local connections can include seasonal public roads. A local connection path can be traced over water without a bridge if there is a publicly available ferry that provides part of the connection. Units smaller than a county must be locally connected within a district.

There is often more than one possible path to connect to nodes. For both local and regional connections the connection between two units is considered to be based on the path that takes the shortest time as determined by generally available mapping software.


Erosity measures severed connections, not cut highways.

I don't understand the difference.

For a school district the node is the district office. I would introduce a clarifying rule here. If the node is in a different subunit, then tracing a path through the subunit that includes the node does not invalidate the path as a connection. This would be a useful rule in VA, too, with independent cities that host county offices.

This is where the path is all in one CD right? If in separate CD's, then per your proposed rule below, you create a new node, and it would seem to me that the other node is effectively erased, and you really have two subunits with separate nodes.


When a subunit is chopped (but not macrochopped) then each part of the chop functions as a new subunit for determining connections. If the piece of the subunit has the node of the subunit then that becomes the node of the chopped piece. If a piece of the subunit doesn't have the original node then the node is defined as the most populous place in that piece (which could be a village or a precinct). That's how we've done it in other states (like MI).
[/quote]

Here I am confused. It seems to me that where a node is in a separate subunit (the Monroe situation), then you need a new node if Monroe is in a separate CD. If you just have an ordinary subunit that is chopped, I don't see why you need another node. There is a highway severance if the highway is cut going from that node, to the node in the adjacent subunit in another CD. For non macrochops, we look only at state highways. For macro-chops, we look to any highway, unless on the county line.

I don't want to move on to your next post, and think about it, until we get this all clarified. And there needs to be a much clearer way to express this all.

[muon2]

Let me back up again and use the subunits of Stark county to illustrate nodes and connections.



The county has 3 types of subunits. Townships are governments marked with their names in sans-serif capitals. Villages are incorporated governments with under 5000 people marked with all capitals in a serif font. Cities are incorporated governments with over 5000 people marked like villages but with solid lines and with a circle after the name. Census defined places (CDP) are labelled with mixed capitals and lower case, and they are not units of government and not county subunits.

Nodes for the subunits are the seats of government - township hall, village hall, city hall. It's wherever  the governing board meets. The node is usually in the subunit, but Nimishillen town hall is in the city limits of Louisville, so it is actually in a different subunit. It's not that unusual if the township office wants to take advantage of city services like water and sewer in an otherwise rural area.

Connections occur between subunits if there is a continuous path of public roads that allow one to travel between the two nodes without entering any other unit. Generally that's pretty clear. There are connections from Pike twp to Bethlehem, Canton, and Sandy twp, as well as to East Sparta village. There isn't a connection from Pike to Tuscarawas county since OH-800 goes through East Sparta between the Pike twp hall and the county line. It's a highway cut at a county line that's not a connection cut.

Nimishillen should logically be connected to the adjacent townships and cities of Louisville and Canton. The definition above would leave Nimishillen only connected to Louisville since Nimishillen's town hall is in Louisville and a path to any other subunit requires going through Louisville. That led me to the clarifying rule: If the node is in a different subunit, then tracing a path through the subunit that includes the node does not invalidate the path as a connection.

Now consider Plain and Canton twps. Their nodes are in the large pieces north and south of Canton respectively. A path between their nodes must go through Canton city or an adjacent township, so Plain and Canton twps are not connected.

There is a presumption that a geographic unit is all internally connected when it is whole even if individual areas are not. Plain has disconnected fragments in the SW and SE corner and Canton has one in the NW corner. These are locally connected to the other twp, but as long as the townships are kept whole those local connections with the fragments don't count. Similarly, Plain is not locally connected to Jackson, but the SW fragment of Plain is connected to Jackson if it is chopped from the rest of Plain.

Once the fragments are chopped from the main part they must be locally connected to the district they are in and have their own node. Suppose Jackson, Perry and Bethlehem twp were in one district and everything to the east was in a different district except for the SW corner of Plain twp. That chops Plain and creates a new node for the SW fragment. The interpretation so far has been that the new fragment has connections to North Canton city (it shows as a village on the map), Canton city and Meyers Lake village. Those connections would be cut in this hypothetical example and contribute to erosity.

If this makes sense I can return to the application in WA.

[Torie]

Let me back up again and use the subunits of Stark county to illustrate nodes and connections.



The county has 3 types of subunits. Townships are governments marked with their names in sans-serif capitals. Villages are incorporated governments with under 5000 people marked with all capitals in a serif font. Cities are incorporated governments with over 5000 people marked like villages but with solid lines and with a circle after the name. Census defined places (CDP) are labelled with mixed capitals and lower case, and they are not units of government and not county subunits.

Nodes for the subunits are the seats of government - township hall, village hall, city hall. It's wherever  the governing board meets. The node is usually in the subunit, but Nimishillen town hall is in the city limits of Louisville, so it is actually in a different subunit. It's not that unusual if the township office wants to take advantage of city services like water and sewer in an otherwise rural area.

Connections occur between subunits if there is a continuous path of public roads that allow one to travel between the two nodes without entering any other unit. Generally that's pretty clear. There are connections from Pike twp to Bethlehem, Canton, and Sandy twp, as well as to East Sparta village. There isn't a connection from Pike to Tuscarawas county since OH-800 goes through East Sparta between the Pike twp hall and the county line. It's a highway cut at a county line that's not a connection cut.

Because Pike is on the county line, we look only at state highways for a cut, right? Let's assume as is not the case, that the town hall was in East Sparta. There mere fact that the state highway just wings and does not go through East Sparta, as thereby avoiding a highway cut does not seem right. There is pavement going from the state highway into East Sparta of course. While the rule works OK for counties (state highways go from county seat to county seat), for townships on a county line, I don't think that rule makes much sense.

In fact, the town hall appears to be in Magnolia, and thus not in the township at all. So we have a problem. It's one thing for a school district of which a city is a part to have its meeting place in the city, and thus pretend it is in the school district fragment. It's another, where the meeting place is in a subunit that has nothing to do with the subunit in question. So here, we need a node somewhere, and I guess that needs to be East Sparta, and just because the state highway does not go through it, I would count that as a cut. Obviously, this only matters if Stark is macro chopped. If it is not, than there is no penalty at all, although there needs to be when a township is chopped. To not do so defies common sense. The best approach is probably another one of those preferences that you hate.

Nimishillen should logically be connected to the adjacent townships and cities of Louisville and Canton. The definition above would leave Nimishillen only connected to Louisville since Nimishillen's town hall is in Louisville and a path to any other subunit requires going through Louisville. That led me to the clarifying rule: If the node is in a different subunit, then tracing a path through the subunit that includes the node does not invalidate the path as a connection.

Now consider Plain and Canton twps. Their nodes are in the large pieces north and south of Canton respectively. A path between their nodes must go through Canton city or an adjacent township, so Plain and Canton twps are not connected.

There is a presumption that a geographic unit is all internally connected when it is whole even if individual areas are not. Plain has disconnected fragments in the SW and SE corner and Canton has one in the NW corner. These are locally connected to the other twp, but as long as the townships are kept whole those local connections with the fragments don't count.

Yes, I understand and agree.

Once the fragments are chopped from the main part they must be locally connected to the district they are in and have their own node. Suppose Jackson, Perry and Bethlehem twp were in one district and everything to the east was in a different district except for the SW corner of Plain twp. That chops Plain and creates a new node for the SW fragment. The interpretation so far has been that the new fragment has connections to North Canton city (it shows as a village on the map), Canton city and Meyers Lake village. Those connections would be cut in this hypothetical example and contribute to erosity.

Yes, I agree with that (at least in the abstract), but if somehow all of Plain could be put in one CD, with Canton and North Canton in another, credit should be given for putting the Plain fragments all in one CD, again perhaps as a preference item. To not do so, again defies common sense. I am going to be using the words "common sense" more and more I think. I apply that "rule," against yours, to make an assessment, is my basic approach.


If this makes sense I can return to the application in WA.

[muon2]

The Pike township hall is in Pike twp even with its Magnolia address. It's at 7134 East Sparta Ave which is just off of OH-800 about 2 mi north of East Sparta. There's no problem with its location.

I agree that it is odd that neither Pike nor East Sparta is technically connected to Tuscarawas due to the irregular annexation lines of East Sparta. The question probably should be whether East Sparta is connected to Tuscarawas instead of Pike. Personally I would favor Pike since it is otherwise locally connected to Tuscarawas, while East Sparta is not.

A rule clarification could be: A highway that would otherwise qualify for a regional connection except for a muni taken out is not invalidated a connection. I have a similar interpretation for simple chops at the county level where a highway is interrupted by a precinct line.

I agree with your sense that a plan should be rewarded that keeps the disconnected parts of a township together. On the erosity side there is already some reward as I illustrated with be example. If more reward is needed, then it dividing such a disconnected unit can count towards the chop score.

[Torie]

The Pike township hall is in Pike twp even with its Magnolia address. It's at 7134 East Sparta Ave which is just off of OH-800 about 2 mi north of East Sparta. There's no problem with its location.

I agree that it is odd that neither Pike nor East Sparta is technically connected to Tuscarawas due to the irregular annexation lines of East Sparta. The question probably should be whether East Sparta is connected to Tuscarawas instead of Pike. Personally I would favor Pike since it is otherwise locally connected to Tuscarawas, while East Sparta is not.

East Sparta is but a village, so its existence is irrelevant it should seem to me. That still leaves hanging I think all of my points about highways, that I don't think you addressed.


A rule clarification could be: A highway that would otherwise qualify for a regional connection except for a muni taken out is not invalidated a connection. I have a similar interpretation for simple chops at the county level where a highway is interrupted by a precinct line.

Is this going beyond the concept of where a muni is part of the subunit, but stands as its own subunit, ala Monroe and the school district issue? Presumably absent that, the subunit would have its own node, and each stands on its own. I don't know what interrupted by a precinct line means. If you mean the situation of where a precinct line would need to be changed, to avoid a highway cut, I don't think one needs a rule for that. Otherwise, are not precinct lines qua precinct lines wholly irrelevant?

I agree with your sense that a plan should be rewarded that keeps the disconnected parts of a township together. On the erosity side there is already some reward as I illustrated with be example. If more reward is needed, then it dividing such a disconnected unit can count towards the chop score.

There is currently no reward for keeping the fragments together where otherwise disconnected by an intervening city. But dividing the fragments, is better than chopping a subunit that is not fragmented. So you need an intermediate zone, to wit something on the order of a preference. Many, many roads led to preference resolutions, if one wants to hew to the common sense rule. There is no escape in my opinion.

[muon2]

The Pike township hall is in Pike twp even with its Magnolia address. It's at 7134 East Sparta Ave which is just off of OH-800 about 2 mi north of East Sparta. There's no problem with its location.

I agree that it is odd that neither Pike nor East Sparta is technically connected to Tuscarawas due to the irregular annexation lines of East Sparta. The question probably should be whether East Sparta is connected to Tuscarawas instead of Pike. Personally I would favor Pike since it is otherwise locally connected to Tuscarawas, while East Sparta is not.

East Sparta is but a village, so its existence is irrelevant it should seem to me. That still leaves hanging I think all of my points about highways, that I don't think you addressed.


Villages are incorporated munis less than 5000 persons, as opposed to cities which are over 5000. They both count much as cities and towns do in WA.


A rule clarification could be: A highway that would otherwise qualify for a regional connection except for a muni taken out is not invalidated a connection. I have a similar interpretation for simple chops at the county level where a highway is interrupted by a precinct line.

Is this going beyond the concept of where a muni is part of the subunit, but stands as its own subunit, ala Monroe and the school district issue? Presumably absent that, the subunit would have its own node, and each stands on its own. I don't know what interrupted by a precinct line means. If you mean the situation of where a precinct line would need to be changed, to avoid a highway cut, I don't think one needs a rule for that. Otherwise, are not precinct lines qua precinct lines wholly irrelevant?

This is independent of and precedential to anything related to Monroe. The issue is due to munis that evolve from an underlying set of townships that cover a county. The solution will have extend at the county level to VA independent cities which sometimes host a county seat and can cause similar issues at that level.

We have had cases where a simple chop placed the connecting highway on the border but the chop crossed the highway in such a way that the highway couldn't be on a path to either part of chop without crossing through the other. That would cause a connection that existed before the chop to vanish after the chop - not a good result. We have ruled that as long as both parts of the chop are otherwise connected to their districts the highway connection adheres to the district on the border.


I agree with your sense that a plan should be rewarded that keeps the disconnected parts of a township together. On the erosity side there is already some reward as I illustrated with be example. If more reward is needed, then it dividing such a disconnected unit can count towards the chop score.

There is currently no reward for keeping the fragments together where otherwise disconnected by an intervening city. But dividing the fragments, is better than chopping a subunit that is not fragmented. So you need an intermediate zone, to wit something on the order of a preference. Many, many roads led to preference resolutions, if one wants to hew to the common sense rule. There is no escape in my opinion.

There is a reward in that keeping the fragments together prevent them from contributing to erosity.

Once the fragments are chopped from the main part they must be locally connected to the district they are in and have their own node. Suppose Jackson, Perry and Bethlehem twp were in one district and everything to the east was in a different district except for the SW corner of Plain twp. That chops Plain and creates a new node for the SW fragment. The interpretation so far has been that the new fragment has connections to North Canton city (it shows as a village on the map), Canton city and Meyers Lake village. Those connections would be cut in this hypothetical example and contribute to erosity.

In this case chopping that one fragment adds 3 to erosity. The question is whether that is enough penalty.

I have thought a lot about the preference issue. My sense is that it applies best when no more than one preference choice is applicable - that is it forms a yes-no decision. If the only tie breaker were existence or non-existence of a chopped fragmented township (like Plain in my example) then it could function.

Real plans might have multiple such chopped townships. If we start counting the number of fragmented townships that are chopped, it's really just another score where the non-existence equals 0. At that point it either should add a third Pareto axis or it should modify one of the existing axes. If it should be a factor, I favor the latter solution where it modifies the CHOP score.

The UCC factors began as a preference, but the data indicated it functioned more efficiently as a modifier to CHOP. I suggest that any of these preferences could be modeled the same way. Or are you suggesting that we should revisit that decision about UCCs and return them to a preference?

[Torie]

Well the colors are certainly getting festive.


The Pike township hall is in Pike twp even with its Magnolia address. It's at 7134 East Sparta Ave which is just off of OH-800 about 2 mi north of East Sparta. There's no problem with its location.

I agree that it is odd that neither Pike nor East Sparta is technically connected to Tuscarawas due to the irregular annexation lines of East Sparta. The question probably should be whether East Sparta is connected to Tuscarawas instead of Pike. Personally I would favor Pike since it is otherwise locally connected to Tuscarawas, while East Sparta is not.

East Sparta is but a village, so its existence is irrelevant it should seem to me. That still leaves hanging I think all of my points about highways, that I don't think you addressed.


Villages are incorporated munis less than 5000 persons, as opposed to cities which are over 5000. They both count much as cities and towns do in WA.


A rule clarification could be: A highway that would otherwise qualify for a regional connection except for a muni taken out is not invalidated a connection. I have a similar interpretation for simple chops at the county level where a highway is interrupted by a precinct line.

Is this going beyond the concept of where a muni is part of the subunit, but stands as its own subunit, ala Monroe and the school district issue? Presumably absent that, the subunit would have its own node, and each stands on its own. I don't know what interrupted by a precinct line means. If you mean the situation of where a precinct line would need to be changed, to avoid a highway cut, I don't think one needs a rule for that. Otherwise, are not precinct lines qua precinct lines wholly irrelevant?

This independent of and precedential to anything related to Monroe. The issue is due to munis that evolve from an underlying set of townships that cover a county. The solution will have extend at the county level to VA independent cities which sometimes host a county seat and can cause similar issues at that level.

What's the problem with just creating another node where the subunit node is parked elsewhere, and calling it a day?

We have had cases where a simple chop placed the connecting highway on the border but the chop crossed the highway in such a way that the highway couldn't be on a path to either part of chop without crossing through the other. That would cause a connection that existed before the chop to vanish after the chop - not a good result. We have ruled that as long as both parts of the chop are otherwise connected to their districts the highway connection adheres to the district on the border.

Sorry to be so obtuse, but can you do a pictogram or something of what your are talking about? I knew I was drowning when you starting talking about disappearing chops.


I agree with your sense that a plan should be rewarded that keeps the disconnected parts of a township together. On the erosity side there is already some reward as I illustrated with be example. If more reward is needed, then it dividing such a disconnected unit can count towards the chop score.

There is currently no reward for keeping the fragments together where otherwise disconnected by an intervening city. But dividing the fragments, is better than chopping a subunit that is not fragmented. So you need an intermediate zone, to wit something on the order of a preference. Many, many roads led to preference resolutions, if one wants to hew to the common sense rule. There is no escape in my opinion.
[/quote]

There is a reward in that the fragments don't contribute to erosity.

I don't think I see how that would be the case, where instead of adding the other fragments to a CD, you chose instead to add some other subunit. Or are you saying, that if you add the other fragments, than the intervening city disappears for purposes of adding highway cuts? If so, that might work, but it should be the case that 100% of the time, a map that units the fragments, is chosen over a map  that instead chooses to add another subunit in the county in question. Is it possible that that would not be the case?

Once the fragments are chopped from the main part they must be locally connected to the district they are in and have their own node. Suppose Jackson, Perry and Bethlehem twp were in one district and everything to the east was in a different district except for the SW corner of Plain twp. That chops Plain and creates a new node for the SW fragment. The interpretation so far has been that the new fragment has connections to North Canton city (it shows as a village on the map), Canton city and Meyers Lake village. Those connections would be cut in this hypothetical example and contribute to erosity.

In this case chopping that one fragment adds 3 to erosity. The question is whether that is enough penalty.

I have thought a lot about the preference issue. My sense is that it applies best when no more than one preference choice is applicable - that is it forms a yes-no decision. If the only tie breaker were existence or non-existence of a chopped fragmented township then it could function.

What do you mean, by no more than one preference choice is applicable? I have many preference items, but each is basically a yes, no decision I think.

Real plans might have multiple such chopped townships. If we start counting the number of fragmented townships that are chopped, it's really just another score where the non-existence equals 0. At that point it either should add a third Pareto axis or it should modify one of the existing axes. If it should be a factor, I favor the latter solution where it modifies the CHOP score.

This is a policy issue. Is a map with one less chop but ten more subunit chops that are not macro-chops better than a map with one more chop and no subunit chops? Probably not, in which event a preference regime would not work. What I was thinking about was in a given instance, where you need to chop into a county, the first priority should be to avoid a subunit chop, and that should take precedence over everything else, assuming there is a pavement connection. But it is better to chop a subunit, than a county. How often would we have a situation where a non macro-chop into a county involves more than one subunit chop?  It seems to me that the situation involves a county chop, and either a subunit chop or not, and maybe a choice of what county to chop, one involving a subunit chop and one not. If that is the case, we seem to be in a preference regime. The number of subunit chops will almost always be  less than the number of county chops, and it will there will be no instance where one is choosing between a county chop or a subunit chop, making a preference regime inappropriate.

The UCC factors began as a preference, but the data indicated it functioned more efficiently as a modifier to CHOP. I suggest that any of these preferences could be modeled the same way. Or are you suggesting that we should revisit that decision about UCCs and return them to a preference?


I consider violating the cover or pack rules, to be every bit as evil, if not more evil, than a county chop. Preferences about separating out venal sins from mortal ones. So the answer is no, I don't want to revisit the UCC rules.

Now the most important question pending is what color you will pick for your font in reply.

[jimrtex]

The Pike township hall is in Pike twp even with its Magnolia address. It's at 7134 East Sparta Ave which is just off of OH-800 about 2 mi north of East Sparta. There's no problem with its location.

I agree that it is odd that neither Pike nor East Sparta is technically connected to Tuscarawas due to the irregular annexation lines of East Sparta. The question probably should be whether East Sparta is connected to Tuscarawas instead of Pike. Personally I would favor Pike since it is otherwise locally connected to Tuscarawas, while East Sparta is not.

A rule clarification could be: A highway that would otherwise qualify for a regional connection except for a muni taken out is not invalidated a connection. I have a similar interpretation for simple chops at the county level where a highway is interrupted by a precinct line.

I agree with your sense that a plan should be rewarded that keeps the disconnected parts of a township together. On the erosity side there is already some reward as I illustrated with be example. If more reward is needed, then it dividing such a disconnected unit can count towards the chop score.

Historically in Ohio, counties, townships, cities, and villages were similar to in New York. Cities were independent of their township(s), while villages were not. You will see this reflected in the redistricting provisions where villages are among the most protected, since generally to even get to them, you would be splitting a township.

But now the distinction between city and village is based on population. Following the census, the SOS tells each municipality whether they are now a city or village.

East Sparta is part of Pike Township. The broken lines on the census map are an indication of that. But the city of North Canton is also a part of Plain township (and Jackson township, if any of North Canton laps over the line). This is true even though North Canton has 17K.

The circle following the name of some cities indicates that they are independent of any township, that is they are minor county division (MCD). In Stark County, they are Alliance, Canton, Louisville, and Massillon. I'm pretty sure that there must be villages which are MCD somewhere in Ohio.

This is the simple version. Parts of cities can remain part of a township. When Columbus annexed it was taking tax base out of townships. Developers preferred to be annexed, since Columbus would provide water and sewer service, which a township might be ill-equipped to do. In addition, Columbus might cherry pick, not annexing areas that might need municipal services but not provide much tax revenue. So instead of cutting off annexation, or making it more difficult, annexing cities agree to keep annexed territories in townships, and ensure a tax revenue stream goes to the former township. I think there is also a distinction at county lines, since townships can't cross county lines. The tentacles of Columbus are not part of the Columbus MCD.

[jimrtex]

There are 21 minor civil divisions (MCD) in Stark County, 17 townships, and the cities of Alliance, Canton, Louisville, and Massillon. Other municipalities (cities or villages) are shown as the black shadow. (The four other cities are also in black, but I have set the transparency of their MCD status to 0).

[muon2]

There are 21 minor civil divisions (MCD) in Stark County, 17 townships, and the cities of Alliance, Canton, Louisville, and Massillon. Other municipalities (cities or villages) are shown as the black shadow. (The four other cities are also in black, but I have set the transparency of their MCD status to 0).

Why does the Census only count some munis as MCDs? Is it a historical artifact? It looks like OH treats them all the same, so they should have equal status as county subunits for redistricting.

[muon2]

Well the colors are certainly getting festive.


The Pike township hall is in Pike twp even with its Magnolia address. It's at 7134 East Sparta Ave which is just off of OH-800 about 2 mi north of East Sparta. There's no problem with its location.

I agree that it is odd that neither Pike nor East Sparta is technically connected to Tuscarawas due to the irregular annexation lines of East Sparta. The question probably should be whether East Sparta is connected to Tuscarawas instead of Pike. Personally I would favor Pike since it is otherwise locally connected to Tuscarawas, while East Sparta is not.

East Sparta is but a village, so its existence is irrelevant it should seem to me. That still leaves hanging I think all of my points about highways, that I don't think you addressed.


Villages are incorporated munis less than 5000 persons, as opposed to cities which are over 5000. They both count much as cities and towns do in WA.


A rule clarification could be: A highway that would otherwise qualify for a regional connection except for a muni taken out is not invalidated a connection. I have a similar interpretation for simple chops at the county level where a highway is interrupted by a precinct line.

Is this going beyond the concept of where a muni is part of the subunit, but stands as its own subunit, ala Monroe and the school district issue? Presumably absent that, the subunit would have its own node, and each stands on its own. I don't know what interrupted by a precinct line means. If you mean the situation of where a precinct line would need to be changed, to avoid a highway cut, I don't think one needs a rule for that. Otherwise, are not precinct lines qua precinct lines wholly irrelevant?

This independent of and precedential to anything related to Monroe. The issue is due to munis that evolve from an underlying set of townships that cover a county. The solution will have extend at the county level to VA independent cities which sometimes host a county seat and can cause similar issues at that level.

What's the problem with just creating another node where the subunit node is parked elsewhere, and calling it a day?

We have had cases where a simple chop placed the connecting highway on the border but the chop crossed the highway in such a way that the highway couldn't be on a path to either part of chop without crossing through the other. That would cause a connection that existed before the chop to vanish after the chop - not a good result. We have ruled that as long as both parts of the chop are otherwise connected to their districts the highway connection adheres to the district on the border.

Sorry to be so obtuse, but can you do a pictogram or something of what your are talking about? I knew I was drowning when you starting talking about disappearing chops.

There are two separate issues at play here. The first was left out of the post, but you responded to it (I think).

The question of a relocated node could only apply to Nimishillen, not to Pike. The Pike town hall is in its proper township and not in a muni. The Nimishillen town hall is within Louisville.

For Nimishillen is there a reason that my proposal doesn't work?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem in Pike is a regional connection to Tuscarawas county that is interrupted by a muni (East Sparta) that is not itself regionally connected to Tuscarawas.

My notes from a year ago include this passage, so I know it was based on a map I scored on a thread. I'll have to see if I can find it to provide a visual.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My proposal to deal with Pike is based on that older rule, but instead of a district chopping a county it is the muni chopping the township.

[Torie]

When you talk about regional connections, are you talking about whether the subunit can be appended to another CD at all, as opposed to highway cut counts for erosity counts? For me, any pavement will do with respect to subunit connections, although a chop in not using a state highway would be disfavored in the preference food chain. For this purpose I would ignore highway interruptions going through a subunit surrounded by another I think. For erosity counts I think I would just create another node. But my views on this are tentative at the moment.

[muon2]

Here's an example that involved the highway interruption rule at the county level. The scoring predates the recognition of macrochops so ignore the scoring as it affects Tuscaloosa county.

Now let me analyze Torie's plan. It has four chops (Walker, Tuscaloosa, Autauga and Washington), and also has the UCC and MCC chop shared by my plan. When I overlay it on the graph it has an erosity of 50 including the addition of the 4 chops to the cut set.

I've recreated the map and enlarged the chop in Washington county to illustrate the rule.



Before the chop Washington used Chatom, the county seat, as the node. It was connected to Mobile to the south via AL-17 and US-45.

Regional connections involve paths that cross county lines, and require a continuous path of numbered state and federal highways between nodes. Using Chatom, Washington was connected to Mobile to the south via AL-17 and US-45. It was connected to Clarke to the east via AL-56 and US-43. It was connected to Choctaw to the north via AL-17. The graph above has links representing those connections.

After the chop nodes are defined for each piece of the chop. As the county seat Chatom remains the node of the blue district piece. Leroy is the largest place in the green piece and becomes the node of green district piece. There is a local connection between the two pieces in Washington since one can go between the nodes on local public roads - in this case AL-56 and US-43.

Regional connections involve paths that cross county lines, and apply to the pieces formed by the chop when connecting to the neighboring counties. Two connections based on continuous state and US highways are clear. After the chop the blue piece is connected only to Mobile. The green piece is connected from Leroy to Clarke via US-43.

The connection to Choctaw from Chatom would go through the green piece leaving the district. The connection to Choctaw from Leroy follows US-43, AL-56, and AL-17 and goes through the blue piece leaving the district. The original connection cannot be eliminated by the chop so it goes to the green piece the path is in that district as it crosses the county line.

That was my interpretation in 2013. My thought is to apply the same idea for Pike. However instead of a chop due to districts, the township is chopped by East Sparta, but the rule would act the same way. The regional connection from Pike to Tuscarawas on OH-800 is interrupted by the "chop" from East Sparta. Since OH-800 is in Pike township at the county line, the connection goes from Pike to Tuscarawas and not from East Sparta to Tuscarawas. A local connection exists between Pike and East Sparta.

[Torie]

I will ask again, when we talk about regional connections, is this the issue of whether subunits can be connected at all, or an erosity measurement issue?

[muon2]

I will ask again, when we talk about regional connections, is this the issue of whether subunits can be connected at all, or an erosity measurement issue?

Local connections are those defined by any roads and apply in all cases between subunits for connections within a county.

Regional connections are those defined by numbered state highways and only apply to cases with connections that cross county lines.

In this context I'm talking about erosity. I recognize that you have raised the issue about whether a plan can connect subunits across a county line with only a local connection. I personally like the consistency of having connections mean the same for both uses, but I think that's a different discussion than the issue I'm trying to clear up here (thinking of both Stark and eventually Snohomish). I'm happy to return to that issue once the use of connections for erosity is set.

[Torie]

I will ask again, when we talk about regional connections, is this the issue of whether subunits can be connected at all, or an erosity measurement issue?

Local connections are those defined by any roads and apply in all cases between subunits for connections within a county.

Regional connections are those defined by numbered state highways and only apply to cases with connections that cross county lines.

In this context I'm talking about erosity. I recognize that you have raised the issue about whether a plan can connect subunits across a county line with only a local connection. I personally like the consistency of having connections mean the same for both uses, but I think that's a different discussion than the issue I'm trying to clear up here (thinking of both Stark and eventually Snohomish). I'm happy to return to that issue once the use of connections for erosity is set.

Thanks. I am just trying to avoid confusion. If we are talking about separate things, we get into even more trouble. Again my loadstar is common sense for all of this. We need to do our best to try to hew to that, and avoid a situation, where the rules force something that just seems silly. Once we get past that, we can think about elegance and politics and clarity and all the rest.

[muon2]

I will ask again, when we talk about regional connections, is this the issue of whether subunits can be connected at all, or an erosity measurement issue?

Local connections are those defined by any roads and apply in all cases between subunits for connections within a county.

Regional connections are those defined by numbered state highways and only apply to cases with connections that cross county lines.

In this context I'm talking about erosity. I recognize that you have raised the issue about whether a plan can connect subunits across a county line with only a local connection. I personally like the consistency of having connections mean the same for both uses, but I think that's a different discussion than the issue I'm trying to clear up here (thinking of both Stark and eventually Snohomish). I'm happy to return to that issue once the use of connections for erosity is set.

Thanks. I am just trying to avoid confusion. If we are talking about separate things, we get into even more trouble. Again my loadstar is common sense for all of this. We need to do our best to try to hew to that, and avoid a situation, where the rules force something that just seems silly. Once we get past that, we can think about elegance and politics and clarity and all the rest.

So in that context, is the AL example helpful? The key point there was how to treat the regional connection that exists between Washington and Choctaw when there are no chops. There were four choices:

A. Remove the connection since the path goes through both subunits on its way to Choctaw from either subunit node. It would not count towards erosity then.

B. Establish the connection to the blue subunit since the path goes more directly through its node and it is otherwise locally connected farther west along the county line. It would count towards erosity since it is cut at the county line between two districts.

C. Establish the connection to the green subunit since the path crosses from that subunit at the county line. It would not count towards erosity since Choctaw is in the green district so it isn't cut.

D. Create two connections to replace the original connection, since without a regional connection both subunits can claim local connections to Choctaw. One of the two connections would now be cut and count towards erosity.

In the 2013 case I used interpretation C for the scoring rule. This kept the number of regional connections unchanged when a (simple) chop took place.