Respecting irregular borders

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

I was drawing in Texas and, generally, I try and keep cities while whenever possible, but some places this becomes almost impossible. For example this is the boundaries of Austin.



Just curious what others thing

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

I do remember in NC republicans followed the wild borders of Cary to try and give their gerrymander an air of legitimacy

[NorCalifornio]

I don't think you should do anything nonsensical.

[Del Tachi]

Disregarding "nonsensical" city boundaries is only important if you prioritize pretty districts above all else.  I think that approach to redistricting is pretty dumb, and whether you live on one side of a municipal boundary or the other is pretty significant when it comes to taxes, schools, elections, etc.  Splitting cities is dividing a very clear political community of interest.   

[It’s so Joever]

City lines have become increasingly arbitrary as they age and unreflective of demography/community. They should not be prioritized over factors such as race, income, commuting patterns etc. However if it is a homogenous city then yeah keep it together.

Same for county lines by the way but to a greater extent, f**k county contiguity.

[Sol]

I don't have a coherent philosophy per se about this, but I generally:

-Try to avoid situations where making this kind of tradeoff is necessary -- i.e. if there's an equally good option that doesn't require making this kind of calculus I'll take it.
-Keep to city lines if they're weird but usable -- i.e. I try to put Allston and Brighton in a Boston-based district over, say, Somerville.
-Keep in mind state culture. In some states, municipalities are much more important to local government and identity, while in others the county is a more important unit. I don't have any compunction about putting the pieces of Austin in Williamson and Hays counties in other districts, but would if it were in NY.
-In situations where the city is too large for a district and has a weird shape I will try to give it a "haircut" to make sure that the pieces I take out are the weird-shaped edges while still leaving the bulk of the city intact.
-I usually treat exclaves as if they were a separate municipality and enclaves as if they were part of the city.

With all that said, I usually don't bother to perfectly follow municipal lines unless I'm trying to be super-serious (i.e. submitting it irl as some sort of proposal). For posting on atlas, it's ok for me to be "close enough" considering how much time that stuff can take.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I don't have a coherent philosophy per se about this, but I generally:

-Try to avoid situations where making this kind of tradeoff is necessary -- i.e. if there's an equally good option that doesn't require making this kind of calculus I'll take it.
-Keep to city lines if they're weird but usable -- i.e. I try to put Allston and Brighton in a Boston-based district over, say, Somerville.
-Keep in mind state culture. In some states, municipalities are much more important to local government and identity, while in others the county is a more important unit. I don't have any compunction about putting the pieces of Austin in Williamson and Hays counties in other districts, but would if it were in NY.
-In situations where the city is too large for a district and has a weird shape I will try to give it a "haircut" to make sure that the pieces I take out are the weird-shaped edges while still leaving the bulk of the city intact.
-I usually treat exclaves as if they were a separate municipality and enclaves as if they were part of the city.

With all that said, I usually don't bother to perfectly follow municipal lines unless I'm trying to be super-serious (i.e. submitting it irl as some sort of proposal). For posting on atlas, it's ok for me to be "close enough" considering how much time that stuff can take.

I think these are generally good rules. Imo, municipalities/cities tend to have greater cultural significance in the Eastern Part of the US, especially the Northeast and the further you get from the northeast the more informal the boundaries become. Fortunately the whole Northeast has really nice boundaries for the most part. So does most of the rust belt. Once you start getting to the Southeast or moving West though, ew.

As you sort of a allude to, a lot of cities with really messy boundaries have a clear core; the area that looks like a battlezone you have more freedom to put in either district to balance population.

[Oryxslayer]

If there is no superior COI, like minority groups or obvious matching groups in neighboring localities, then it becomes an option. Whether you respect it though should depend on whether the residents respect said lines. Sometimes,  despite the awful lines, residents have clear local identity and will respond they live in X rather than Y or outside X. Usually, this is the case when the land is fully subdivided and one messy locality flows directly into another.  This should be given more weight than a messy border where no other communities of size have a presence comparable,  and especially if the city is continuing to annex land.

[Padfoot]

Columbus is a great example of where city lines should be at least partially ignored.

[Хahar 🤔]

A lot of this can be solved by taking the drawing process from humans and giving it to AI.

What would that solve? Be specific.

[SevenEleven]

A lot of this can be solved by taking the drawing process from humans and giving it to AI.

What would that solve? Be specific.

It doesn't solve the original issue, but serves as an accessory making solving the problem easier.

It makes it easier for people to abide by increasingly intricate lists of rules their maps must follow.
The robot can do it better than they can, whether they want to admit it or not.

Having robots do the job will make sure all that remains is deciding the criteria.

Were you muted recently? Can we make that happen again to get less of these sort of posts?

[MaxQue]

A lot of this can be solved by taking the drawing process from humans and giving it to AI.

What would that solve? Be specific.

It doesn't solve the original issue, but serves as an accessory making solving the problem easier.

It makes it easier for people to abide by increasingly intricate lists of rules their maps must follow.
The robot can do it better than they can, whether they want to admit it or not.

Having robots do the job will make sure all that remains is deciding the criteria.

Were you muted recently? Can we make that happen again to get less of these sort of posts?

You're afraid robots will take away your hobby

Embrace it

No, when I look at ChatGPT nonsense or yours, I don't.

[Mr. Smith]

A lot of this can be solved by taking the drawing process from humans and giving it to AI.

What would that solve? Be specific.

It doesn't solve the original issue, but serves as an accessory making solving the problem easier.

It makes it easier for people to abide by increasingly intricate lists of rules their maps must follow.
The robot can do it better than they can, whether they want to admit it or not.

Having robots do the job will make sure all that remains is deciding the criteria.

Ok Dr. Strangelove.