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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Escalate away.

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

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

Escalate away.

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

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

Escalate away.

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

Escalate away.

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

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

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

My pleasure to help. Good communication between contributors, especially as we share deeper experience (like that a service=driveway is for a single residence) makes for a better map!

It is osm.wiki/Talk:United_States_admin_level where a section ends with

"The bottom line: it has emerged as consensus that COGs, MPOs, similar "special purpose districts" and statistical areas defined by the US Census Bureau are tagged with neither boundary=administrative nor admin_level=* of any value."

There is a reference in that section to talk-us discussion to bolster this conclusion: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2012-December/010066.html .

BTW, there is no @ before my moniker here.

Unless and until there is recent consensus on what it is best to change these boundaries TO, leaving them at a "status quo as agreed to in 2017" seems best. They are not "mass" changes, as while the number of ways seems large, this is only some modest tagging distinctions (according to our wiki and consensus) across two small states, none of the actual boundaries were changed. (If many of the boundaries were changed, that might be "mass changes," but it wasn't, so this isn't).

Unless and until there is recent consensus on what it is best to change these boundaries TO, leaving them at a "status quo as agreed to in 2017" seems best. They are not "mass" changes, they are changes to eight relations, and only some modest tagging distinctions (according to our wiki and consensus), none of the actual boundaries were changed. (If many of the boundaries were changed, that might be "mass changes," but it wasn't, so this isn't).

Unless and until there is recent consensus on what it is best to change these boundaries TO, leaving them at a "status quo as agreed to in 2017" seems best. They are not "mass" changes, they are changes to nine relations, and only some modest tagging distinctions (according to our wiki and consensus), none of the actual boundaries were changed. (If many of the boundaries were changed, that might be "mass changes," but it wasn't, so this isn't).

Unless and until there is recent consensus on what it is best to change these boundaries TO, leaving them at a "status quo as agreed to in 2017" seems best. They are not "mass" changes, they are changes to nine relations, and only some modest tagging distinctions (according to our wiki and consensus), none of the actual boundaries were changed. (If many of the boundaries were changed, that might be "mass changes," but it wasn't, so this isn't).

Unless and until there is recent consensus on what it is best to change these boundaries TO, leaving them at a "status quo as agreed to in 2017" seems best. They are not "mass" changes, they are changes to nine relations, and only some modest tagging distinctions (according to our wiki and consensus), none of the actual boundaries were changed. (If many of the boundaries were changed, that might be "mass changes," but it wasn't, so this isn't).

It would be helpful if you say what, specifically, you believe is wrong. There is a rather messy Discussion going on at osm.wiki/Talk:United_States_admin_level#Recently_added_Connecticut_COG_.28Regions.29_as_5_and_CDP_as_10_should_be_deleted which indicate "it was started" by Mashin.

I have used name_absent=yes to replace Name=Unknown Name from an import, so I think I understand something about the edge.

OSM is a database. It isn't about how Standard rendering looks, but I'd say it looks pretty good and the recent improvements are appreciated!