Local vs regional road connections
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:49:30 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Local vs regional road connections
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21
Author Topic: Local vs regional road connections  (Read 47632 times)
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #375 on: February 05, 2016, 01:22:12 PM »

I propose to parse the question mark as a cut link. Meyers Lake is equally connected to both Plain and Canton twp. I think there should be a cut if a district line separates Meyers Lake from either of those twps.

At some point the rules have to be general in nature. I've tried to extract the general principle you applied to the specific case here. If there is a defect, I'm hoping you will point it out. If there is an unintended consequence elsewhere that we don't now anticipate, I think we should deal with it as it arises.

OK. Do you agree with my vertical red line (to wit, no cut)?
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #376 on: February 05, 2016, 01:31:57 PM »

I propose to parse the question mark as a cut link. Meyers Lake is equally connected to both Plain and Canton twp. I think there should be a cut if a district line separates Meyers Lake from either of those twps.

At some point the rules have to be general in nature. I've tried to extract the general principle you applied to the specific case here. If there is a defect, I'm hoping you will point it out. If there is an unintended consequence elsewhere that we don't now anticipate, I think we should deal with it as it arises.

OK. Do you agree with my vertical red line (to wit, no cut)?

I think that's what my general rule would do. There's no chop, so there's only a single node for each twp (treating them as fragmented geographic units). There's no path between the nodes of the whole twps so there's no connection between them to cut. Tell me if you think the rule would work out differently as written.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #377 on: February 05, 2016, 01:43:32 PM »

I propose to parse the question mark as a cut link. Meyers Lake is equally connected to both Plain and Canton twp. I think there should be a cut if a district line separates Meyers Lake from either of those twps.

At some point the rules have to be general in nature. I've tried to extract the general principle you applied to the specific case here. If there is a defect, I'm hoping you will point it out. If there is an unintended consequence elsewhere that we don't now anticipate, I think we should deal with it as it arises.

OK. Do you agree with my vertical red line (to wit, no cut)?

I think that's what my general rule would do. There's no chop, so there's only a single node for each twp (treating them as fragmented geographic units). There's no path between the nodes of the whole twps so there's no connection between them to cut. Tell me if you think the rule would work out differently as written.


OK, I just wanted to see if we are on the same page as to policy first. Apparently we are. Isn't that grand?  Smiley
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #378 on: February 05, 2016, 03:54:08 PM »

Do these then make sense as general rules?

A fragmented geographic unit is one where the unit consists of two or more discontiguous parts. All parts of a fragmented unit are considered connected if the entire district is kept wholly within a district, and the unit has a single node. If a fragmented unit is chopped, each discontiguous fragment is treated as a separate geographic unit with its own node.

If a fragment of a unit is entirely surrounded by a unit, and the population of the surrounded fragment is not needed to bring the population range of the districts within the required tolerance, then inclusion of the surrounded fragment with the surrounding unit does not count as a chop of the fragmented unit.

I added the provision about population to limit the ability to game the system by utilizing large surrounded fragments to balance population without a chop penalty. For small fragments it allows plans to maintain strict contiguity by including the surrounded fragments with the surrounding unit.

If there is no connecting path from a geographic unit to any other unit, then a connection exists from that geographic unit to each contiguous unit if there is a local connection to any part of the contiguous unit.

This would provide for connecting links from Meyers Lake to both Canton and Plain twps, and either could be cut, regardless of the status of chops in either township.
I don't know if this is relevant for your discussion, but the new Ohio Constitution legislative redistricting provisions, say that a discontiguous township or municipality is not considered to be split if parts are placed in different districts.

You could conceivably treat each fragment as a node, but provide some sort of bonus if a township is kept whole (or possibly the majority of its population). There could also be consideration to not cutting cities to get to unincorporated enclaves, unless the city was going to be cut otherwise (eg Columbus).
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #379 on: February 06, 2016, 01:16:08 PM »
« Edited: February 06, 2016, 03:12:54 PM by Torie »

Do these then make sense as general rules?

A fragmented geographic unit is one where the unit consists of two or more discontiguous parts. All parts of a fragmented unit are considered connected if the entire district is kept wholly within a district, and the unit has a single node. If a fragmented unit is chopped, each discontiguous fragment is treated as a separate geographic unit with its own node. OK

If a fragment of a unit is entirely surrounded by a unit, and the population of the surrounded fragment is not needed to bring the population range of the districts within the required tolerance, then inclusion of the surrounded fragment with the surrounding unit does not count as a chop of the fragmented unit.

I added the provision about population to limit the ability to game the system by utilizing large surrounded fragments to balance population without a chop penalty. For small fragments it allows plans to maintain strict contiguity by including the surrounded fragments with the surrounding unit.

I have trouble with this one. I don't think keeping one subunit whole that has a a large interior subunit fragment is gaming the system. The only alternative might be to do a bridge chop to put the surrounded area into a separate CD, and I, as you know, think bridge chops should be disfavored as a preference item. So at the moment, I am not comfortable with this. Perhaps if you came up with an example, where using the common sense rule, the map is being gamed, and results in poor public policy, I might reconsider. But in the interim, I struck what to me is the offending text.


If there is no connecting path from the node of a geographic unit to the node of any other unit, or fragment thereof, then a connection exists from that geographic unit to each contiguous unit, or fragment thereof, if there is a local connection to any part of the such contiguous unit.

This would provide for connecting links from Meyers Lake to both Canton and Plain twps, and either could be cut, regardless of the status of chops in either township.

I interlineated to make this text clearer to me, assuming that was your intent. I made an inference as to what your intent was, and if I am correct in my inferences, I am in agreement, subject to my friendly amendments.

Good job overall! This issue was quite a little mind F for me. I am pleased we got through it without undue "synapsal" scar tissue. Smiley

Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #380 on: February 06, 2016, 03:07:21 PM »
« Edited: February 06, 2016, 03:23:15 PM by muon2 »

Thanks.

I'll be on the lookout for a situation that takes undue advantage of a surrounded fragment. In the meantime think about the situation where a township has two sizable fragments of roughly equal population, one of which is wholly surrounded by a city but the other sits on the perimeter of the same city. Those two parts both get their services from the same unit of government, the township, and form a clear community of interest based on that township. Shouldn't there be an incentive to keep the two parts in the same district? Compare that to the case where the same two fragments aren't fully surrounded and there is an incentive to keep them whole.


If there is no connecting path from the node of a geographic unit to the node of any other unit, or fragment thereof, then a connection exists from that geographic unit to each contiguous unit, or fragment thereof, if there is a local connection to any part of the such contiguous unit.

This would provide for connecting links from Meyers Lake to both Canton and Plain twps, and either could be cut, regardless of the status of chops in either township.

I interlineated to make this text clearer to me, assuming that was your intent. I made an inference as to what your intent was, and if I am correct in my inferences, I am in agreement, subject to my friendly amendments.

I indicated the one change I would make to your friendly amendment. The Meyers Lake situation arises because there is no path to the subunit node, not the lack of a path to the imputed node of a fragment.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #381 on: February 06, 2016, 03:18:57 PM »
« Edited: February 06, 2016, 03:21:14 PM by Torie »

Thanks.

I'll be on the lookout for a situation that takes undue advantage of a surrounded fragment. In the meantime think about the situation where a township has two sizable fragments of roughly equal population, one of which is wholly surrounded by a city but the other sits on the perimeter of the same city. Those two parts both get their services from the same unit of government, the township, and form a clear community of interest based on that township. Shouldn't there be an incentive to keep the two parts in the same district?

In lieu of keeping the subunit that surrounds the surrounded fragment whole? I don't think so. On the other hand, I do see, that if the choice after keeping the subunit whole which surrounds the fragment, is between taking in the remaining fragment, or some other subunit, there should be an incentive to add the balance of the fragmented subunit. So just thinking off the top of my head, maybe we say that the fragment that is not surrounded is deemed to have no node if all fragments are within one CD or something, so one can avoid a road cut by taking it in as opposed to some other subunit. Putting aside the mechanics of getting there, that to me is the common sense result. Agreed?
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #382 on: February 06, 2016, 03:32:35 PM »

Thanks.

I'll be on the lookout for a situation that takes undue advantage of a surrounded fragment. In the meantime think about the situation where a township has two sizable fragments of roughly equal population, one of which is wholly surrounded by a city but the other sits on the perimeter of the same city. Those two parts both get their services from the same unit of government, the township, and form a clear community of interest based on that township. Shouldn't there be an incentive to keep the two parts in the same district?

In lieu of keeping the subunit that surrounds the surrounded fragment whole? I don't think so. On the other hand, I do see, that if the choice after keeping the subunit whole which surrounds the fragment, is between taking in the remaining fragment, or some other subunit, there should be an incentive to add the balance of the fragmented subunit. So just thinking off the top of my head, maybe we say that the fragment that is not surrounded is deemed to have no node if all fragments are within one CD or something, so one can avoid a road cut by taking it in as opposed to some other subunit. Putting aside the mechanics of getting there, that to me is the common sense result. Agreed?

I will think about the plausibility of the mechanics. I don't want to get too far away from the basic definition of the node as a specific geographic point defined by the government in question.

While you were writing this I added to my quoted post that you may or may not have seen.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #383 on: February 06, 2016, 04:46:58 PM »

Thanks.

I'll be on the lookout for a situation that takes undue advantage of a surrounded fragment. In the meantime think about the situation where a township has two sizable fragments of roughly equal population, one of which is wholly surrounded by a city but the other sits on the perimeter of the same city. Those two parts both get their services from the same unit of government, the township, and form a clear community of interest based on that township. Shouldn't there be an incentive to keep the two parts in the same district? Compare that to the case where the same two fragments aren't fully surrounded and there is an incentive to keep them whole.
Prairie Township, Franklin County, Ohio is an example.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #384 on: February 06, 2016, 06:15:16 PM »

If there is no connecting path from the node of a geographic unit to the node of any other unit, or fragment thereof, then a connection exists from that geographic unit to each contiguous unit, or fragment thereof, if there is a local connection to any part of the such contiguous unit.

This would provide for connecting links from Meyers Lake to both Canton and Plain twps, and either could be cut, regardless of the status of chops in either township.

...

I indicated the one change I would make to your friendly amendment. The Meyers Lake situation arises because there is no path to the subunit node, not the lack of a path to the imputed node of a fragment.

I'm lost here again. The Canton Township fragment has no node, and is a fragment. I don't understand the strikeout. You will need to elaborate, perhaps with a map graphic.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #385 on: February 07, 2016, 11:54:17 PM »
« Edited: February 07, 2016, 11:56:45 PM by muon2 »

If there are no subunit chops then the nodes are where the stars are in this map. The fragments are all considered connected since there is no chop. There is no connection between the Meyers Lake node and either township regardless of the the existence of adjacent fragments. That's the sufficient condition to trigger the rule I wrote.



The existence of the fragments becomes important in the remedy outlined by the rule. The township fragments are contiguous to Meyers Lake and local connections exist, so both connections become defined by the rule. Once defined the connections can be cut by a district line adding to erosity.

It's important to define the connections before considering where the district lines are. Each chop generates a new look at connections, and this is repeated at each level - county chops to subunits, subunit chops to fragments, etc.

Suppose that neither Plain nor Canton twp are chopped, but are in different districts. Meyers Lake will have a cut link to whichever township is in the other district. Now suppose that Plain twp is chopped and Meyers Lake is in the same district as the adjacent Plain twp fragment but not in the same district as Canton twp (like your example below on the right). If we waited to define connections after the twp chop, then the Canton fragment would be assigned a pseudonode, Meyers Lake would be connected to it, and the special rule would not be invoked. This would lead to no cut connection between Meyers Lake and Plain (the question mark would vanish). In my view the question mark is a cut link whether or not Plain is chopped.

Below is the graphic. I put up the question mark, because there is not Canton township node between Meyers and Canton township node. So if no chop of Canton township, I guess no highway cuts at all around Meyers. But if it is chopped, does that generate a highway cut not only from Canton Township to Canton City, but also from Meyers to Canton township to the south? Having two highway cuts generated by the chop of Canton township there, seems a bit much. But maybe that is necessary to make the rule work in general, even if a bit much in this instance, since the rule is that when a fragmented subunit is chopped, each fragment generates its own node. So I guess maybe there is no escape.



I added emphasis to your quote since the critical point is that the creation of nodes by chopped subunit fragments not happen until connections are defined at the whole subunit level.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #386 on: February 08, 2016, 09:17:17 AM »
« Edited: February 08, 2016, 10:08:19 AM by Torie »

How about the below? I see what you are saying I think, but all of this special rule making only obtains when a unit is fragmented, and not otherwise.

"If there is no connecting path from the node of a geographic unit to the node of another contiguous unit which is fragmented, then a local connection exists from that geographic unit to such contiguous fragmented unit."

The above generates a highway cut where one would not otherwise exist due to fragmentation of a contiguous subunit (even if the fragmented subunit is not chopped). That gets where we want to go, right?
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #387 on: February 08, 2016, 12:01:44 PM »

How about the below? I see what you are saying I think, but all of this special rule making only obtains when a unit is fragmented, and not otherwise.

"If there is no connecting path from the node of a geographic unit to the node of another contiguous unit which is fragmented, then a local connection exists from that geographic unit to such contiguous fragmented unit."

The above generates a highway cut where one would not otherwise exist due to fragmentation of a contiguous subunit (even if the fragmented subunit is not chopped). That gets where we want to go, right?

There are examples where this happens at the county level and fragmented units don't come into play. For example Pitkin county CO has no regional connection from its node at Aspen to any contiguous county. There are roads that aren't all-season state highways that can be used to make a path, and Pitkin has to be linked to at least one other county. I suspect there are other such examples at both the county and subunit level, so I didn't want to restrict the special rule to cases like Meyers Lake that do involve fragmented units.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #388 on: February 08, 2016, 12:12:48 PM »

That is a separate issue - what to do with counties with no all season state highway connections to any other county. The answer where that is the case is to allow local highways, or no highways, for purposes have allowing the county to be in some CD.

We are talking about highway cuts here for erosity scores. For that, we only need a special rule for adjacent fragmented subunits.

So based on my understanding of the issue, I don't agree that what you are doing makes sense. We don't want to create highway cuts where there should be none. There would be no highway cuts for Meyers lake, if the adjacent subunits were not fragmented, and there was no node in the area.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #389 on: February 08, 2016, 01:12:48 PM »

I brought up Pitkin because there are two or three possible ways to connect it to other counties. If I treat it like Meyers Lake and allow all local paths to become connections, then that establishes where cuts will occur. I think it should have those connections and it would then affect the erosity measurement, just like Meyers Lake.

It's also possible that there is no connection due to geography even when there is no discontiguous fragment in play. We had a similar case for the cross county connection from Pike twp to Tuscawaras county. The highway connection is blocked by East Sparta, and there is no local road in the unincorporated area that connects to OH-800 south of East Sparta. Even if the township had no local roads west of East Sparta we would still define that as a connection to be cut based on OH-800. That causes it to affect erosity.



I don't want three separate rules if one rule captures the same basic idea. The idea is that in some cases a link that should exist doesn't because of specific geography - fragment from other units, mountains, rivers or any other geographic isolation.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #390 on: February 08, 2016, 01:24:45 PM »

I brought up Pitkin because there are two or three possible ways to connect it to other counties. If I treat it like Meyers Lake and allow all local paths to become connections, then that establishes where cuts will occur. I think it should have those connections and it would then affect the erosity measurement, just like Meyers Lake.

It's also possible that there is no connection due to geography even when there is no discontiguous fragment in play. We had a similar case for the cross county connection from Pike twp to Tuscawaras county. The highway connection is blocked by East Sparta, and there is no local road in the unincorporated area that connects to OH-800 south of East Sparta. Even if the township had no local roads west of East Sparta we would still define that as a connection to be cut based on OH-800. That causes it to affect erosity.



I don't want three separate rules if one rule captures the same basic idea. The idea is that in some cases a link that should exist doesn't because of specific geography - fragment from other units, mountains, rivers or any other geographic isolation.

We are mixing up a lot of different issues here, which is a problem, particularly when the language was advertised as dealing with the fragment issue. That is what I am always worried about, that imbedded in the language dealing with one issue, it deals with others. It would be nice to have all the issues the language is intended to address listed.

Anyway, I interpret your language as turning the horizontal red line into a black one, and I thought we agreed that it should be red.



As to East Sparta, the issue there is whether involves a highway that enters a subunit, and then leaves it, before reentering it again to get to the node. That needs separate and explicit language that explains that.

As to Pitkin, I thought we agreed that if there is no state highway cut, you don't have a highway cut between counties. Are you not now manufacturing one?
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #391 on: February 08, 2016, 03:18:15 PM »

In both Meyers Lake and Pitkin the standard rule provides for no connections to their respective nodes. The aim of the special rule is to insure that all units have at least one connection that could be cut. My intent is to say that if geography leaves no connection to a unit then one must look at local connections that don't provide a path under the standard rule. Those connections created under the special rule can be cut for erosity just as one would cut the connections formed by the standard rule.

My interpretation of the right hand image is that the horizontal red line is not a link. Plain twp is kept whole so there is only one link between it and Canton city based on the standard rule. The special rule (in the second quote below) is never invoked since the fragments are never viewed separately (per the first quoted rule) and there is a connecting path between the whole subunits.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #392 on: February 08, 2016, 04:15:44 PM »

Let's step way back for a moment. Can two counties be in one CD, if the state highway link does not go node to node (putting aside the nick issue)? Has it always been your intent that if there is a highway cut, it counts for the ferocity count, even if does not go node to node? This is a more general issue, that the highway interruption issue that East Sparta represents. This is why it is so important to fully understand the intended policy, before dealing with the language.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #393 on: February 08, 2016, 05:47:39 PM »

One of my guiding principles is that any district should be internally connected so that one can travel within a district without leaving it. Some of the connections require a stronger standard, and those are defined as the regional connections that cross county lines. This connection principle only bows when a well-defined geographic unit that has internally unreachable areas is kept intact. I'm not thinking only of fragments, but also areas like the part of St John the Baptist parish south of the Mississippi where there is no bridge or ferry within the parish.

In order to capture the connection principle a geographic map can be transformed into a mathematical graph that many would describe as a network. In the transformation each unit in the map is represented by a node and connections that go beyond mere contiguity are represented by links. The connections must be defined so that the result is a connected graph: a path can be traced from a node to any other node through some series of links. This map of AL is that representation for counties which are the highest level of units in the state.



A district plan represents a partition of the graph for the state into a set of subgraphs corresponding to the set of districts. The connection principle is enforced by requiring that each district subgraph is itself a connected graph. Then the set of cut links between district subgraphs measures the erosity. That was how I transformed and measured your plan for AL with this graph. I would invalidate a plan that followed contiguity within the district, but not the connections in the graph.



The next step is defining rules for dealing with units that are chopped in a plan. In particular when a macrochop forces a unit to be split into subunits, I need the same principles that apply at the coarser level still apply at the finer level. That is a critical step that allows the erosity measurement to still make sense in dense population areas as I demonstrated with the King county CDs earlier in the thread.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #394 on: February 09, 2016, 09:25:23 AM »

Could you specifically answer my questions? That was more of a generalized statement to me.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #395 on: February 09, 2016, 09:49:09 AM »

I thought you wanted to step way back. I guess I stepped too far back. Tongue

Let me apply the principles I laid out to your specific questions.

Let's step way back for a moment. Can two counties be in one CD, if the state highway link does not go node to node (putting aside the nick issue)?

Two whole counties cannot be in the same CD if they are not connected directly or by a path through other nodes in the same CD. Otherwise the resulting CD would not follow the connection principle.

Has it always been your intent that if there is a highway cut, it counts for the ferocity (erosity?) count, even if does not go node to node?

Links represent connections between nodes and links only exist between nodes (eg the AL map and its kin). Cut links between nodes in different districts always count towards erosity. What isn't shown in the AL map representing your CD plan is that the node in each of the chopped counties is replaced by two linked nodes (or more if there is a macrochop) on either side of the district line.

This is a more general issue, that the highway interruption issue that East Sparta represents. This is why it is so important to fully understand the intended policy, before dealing with the language.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #396 on: February 09, 2016, 10:05:50 AM »

Let's step way back for a moment. Can two counties be in one CD, if the state highway link does not go node to node (putting aside the nick issue)?

Two whole counties cannot be in the same CD if they are not connected directly or by a path through other nodes in the same CD. Otherwise the resulting CD would not follow the connection principle. 

So the answer is no. Does the state highway link going through East Sparta cause the link to fail then since there is no direct connection absent a special rule? As you know, for chops into a county, I think it unwise to require a state highway connection. That violates the common sense rule if by settling for mere pavement, one can avoid a chop of a subunit. So I would not require a state highway across a county line for county chops that are not macrochops.

Has it always been your intent that if there is a highway cut, it counts for the erosity count, even if does not go node to node?

Links represent connections between nodes and links only exist between nodes (eg the AL map and its kin). Cut links between nodes in different districts always count towards erosity. What isn't shown in the AL map representing your CD plan is that the node in each of the chopped counties is replaced by two linked nodes (or more if there is a macrochop) on either side of the district line.

So the answer to my question is no. Is that correct? There is no erosity penalty if the requisite highway link (state highway across county lines, pavement otherwise), does not go "directly" node to node. If so, that gets back to the East Sparta issue, because there should be a highway cut.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #397 on: February 09, 2016, 10:41:38 AM »
« Edited: February 09, 2016, 10:45:00 AM by muon2 »

There's another principle at play here that may pertain to East Sparta. Connections that exist without a chop cannot disappear by using a chop. If a chop allowed connections to disappear then it would invite all sorts of mischief. A chop can be used judiciously to reduce erosity, but that's by burying the connections within the district and not exposing them to cuts.

When there is a simple chop of a county the county node is replaced by two nodes representing the two pieces. The existing links are assigned to one or the other of the nodes based on where the highway crosses the county line. I think we agreed on this one already from the example of Washington county AL. The point you raise is that you would like to have a chop that is only locally connected to the rest of the district, and that requires a different form of the rule assigning connections to a simple chop.

With the discussion of Stark I am presuming a macrochop. That means that Stark is replaced by a new network of its subunits. I used the Mecklenburg NC map as an example of the subnetwork created by a macrochop.

The blue links are state highway links between counties. The Mecklenburg network shows both the local (gold) and regional (blue) connections to the subunits (pink are contiguous only).



Your point here is that it should be permitted to connect the two northern subunits to Iredell in one district and connect the one just south of those two to Cabarrus in a different district, while the rest go to some other district which isn't the same as Cabarrus. Am I getting that right?
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #398 on: February 11, 2016, 11:51:34 AM »
« Edited: February 11, 2016, 11:53:10 AM by Torie »

Let's go back to this malicious chop to avoid a highway cut issue. You want to create a pseudo Leroy node to avoid avoiding a highway cut. I say you don't need Leroy. You still have a highway cut en route from Chatom to the node in the adjacent county. If Leroy were the node, you would have no such cut between Leroy and the adjacent county. So we are just using different nodes to generate the same cut in the same place. Is that right? Have I missed something here? If not, we can dispense with the Leroy pseudo node. And you don't generate a second highway cut merely by chopping something.



Perhaps you can show me again, where a chop really does eliminate a highway cut, as opposed to just changing the node that generates the cut. I don't see it in the above example.

As to the question about the NC county chops, both of the posited chops in Mecklenberg are macro-chops, so the second chop south of the northernmost one that has no state highway connection would not be legal. If it were not a macro-chop, with the local road connection, it would be.

I still think the simple fix for East Sparta is that once a highway enters a subunit, it does not lose connectivity solely by virtue of entering another subunit en route to its node. You want some more universal rule. I am worried about collateral consequences. If there is more general language, I want to be darn sure it does not sweep something else in, that might violate the common sense rule. I am more comfortable with narrow language as a result. But if you can persuade me that the more general language merely addresses what we both agree needs to be addressed, without more, fine. But we are not there yet.

Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #399 on: February 11, 2016, 01:40:06 PM »

It sounds like we are on the same page in regards to disallowing local connections across county lines when a macrochop is present in either of the counties. I understand the distinction you are making between units due to simple chops and I am thinking on it.

Before responding to the AL example, I want to make sure I understand your suggestion about East Sparta. Am I correct that this only applies to paths involving a regional connection across a county line? That is, I want to make sure we aren't talking about a highway entering a fragmented subunit from an adjacent subunit (eg Plain twp along OH 687 from Jackson twp to the west), then following a highway path through an intervening subunit (eg Canton city) before reaching the node.  I think we agreed that Jackson and Plain aren't connected since the only local road path has to go through either Canton city or North Canton city.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.069 seconds with 12 queries.