Local vs regional road connections

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Torie]

I am revving up my aging and defective and tired old mind to tackle Alabama. And I think I need a shower first. So later.

[Torie]

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.

Your second sentence above flummoxes me. There is a highway cut for erosity purposes, since the state highway leaves the district. I don't get the "cannot be eliminated" bit.

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.

And I am even more underwater here. Let's go back a step. If a state highway does not go through a subunit node that is on the county line, what happens? Does it still count as a highway cut? Why does East Sparta come into this? As you say, there is no state highway going directly from Tuscarawas to East Sparta because Pike intervenes, and even if it did not, there is no state highway going from Tuscarawas to East Sparta. East Sparta seems irrelevant to me. And it seems to me, there should be a highway cut counted even if the highway does not go through the node, but I am not sure about that.  It's the conundrum of a highway that just wings a subunit, versus one that goes through the middle, but misses the node, because the node is in an odd place.

If the highway does go through the Pike node, I do think that a subunit surrounded by a subunit (as East Sparta is by Pike), should be ignored for highway cut counts. One should not avoid a highway cut merely because the highway goes through an intervening subunit. In fact, that might be a general rule even if the subunit is not surrounded.

But I have no confidence at all, I am really understanding what you want me to understand. Sorry about that.

[Torie]

OK, after 3 cups of coffee, I have finished wading through this nightmare, and think I understand it, although not really your 4 options. What you and Jimrtex have apparently been doing is what I have never done, because to me it doesn't make any sense, so I never considered it.

So let's step back from all of this a bit. Why is it necessary to create two subunits with this chop? Why is it necessary to create Leroy as a node?  Is seems to me that you have the Chatam node, and two highway cuts, one to Butler (with the highway cut at Millry), and one to Wagarville. End of story. So what is the policy reason to create another subunit, and another node. What does it accomplish? What mischief is it designed to stamp out?

Obviously the idea that you can eliminate highway cuts with creative chops that would otherwise exist is ludicrous, as you suggest. But before having to torture my brain with any of this further, we need to get past the the issue of whether or not we need to create another subunit with its own node out of thin air by virtue of a chop of a subunit. The only time I see the need to create a pseudo node is where a subunit not chopped is node-less because the node is parked in another subunit.

[Torie]

1. "Ansatz?"  You expected me to know what the heck that meant? Really? I looked it up, and I still don't know what the heck it means. Whatever. I thought it might be a typo of "ersatz," but no.

2. So cutting to the chase, a divided subunit, does not create another node, and we just just count road cuts where the road crosses a CD line, right? So what I have been doing, I can keep dong, right?

3. I think I agree that if a state highway crosses a county line into a subunit, and then en route to the node of that subunit, travels through another subunit, that does not matter. It would only matter anyway, if the subunit were chopped somehow in a way that cut the road north of North Sparta but not before. If the choice is between picking the closest node, or the node of the subunit where the road first enters, the latter makes more sense, and is easier to apply. So are we on board with that, and have I accurately stated what is in play here?

4. Do you have any idea how tortuous this has been to me? Whatever happened to KISS? Is KISS a thought crime in the physics world?

[Torie]

Yes, in the back of my mind, I was concerned about the corner cutter issue, as a problem lurking out there, but considering a muni cut out of a township as something special leaves me cold too. That distinction seems artificial to me. So this one will need to be carefully worked though, so that we hew to the common sense metric. The idea here is really about a road entering one subunit, and then going through another to get to the node of the first subunit. At least in this context, it may be just ignoring traversing through the intervening subunit makes the most sense as a universal rule. In that sense, it kind of tracks the nascent nick rule.

[Torie]

Interstates are an inherent challenge because they are limited access and can go miles through a subunit with no exit. Bethlehem twp doesn't actually pose a problem with I-77 since OH-21 provides a regional connection to Tuscarawas.

That brings me to Nimishillen twp and Louisville city. The nodes are shown by stars with Louisvile in white and Nimishillen in blue. The Louisville city within the township. The Nimishillen node is within Louisville city. If I apply the same rule to Nimishillen that I did to Pike, then Nimishillen is connected to the neighboring townships and Louisville is not. I think that's the commonsense result, but now backed by an actual rule.

Well the map above is an example of a subunit node that is in a foreign subunit. So the issue is whether you erase the subunit in which the the node from another subunit is in, or create a pseudo node in the subunit in which no node is located. What exactly is your dividing line, between a subunit that is second class, versus a regular one, other than well, it is obvious that one subunit was carved out from another?  Tell me why it raises problem to just create a pseudo node for the nodeless subunit (where that subunit is not rendered nodeless by a chop, where me via some simple mechanics, and you via something deep into the weeds, get to the same place apparently)?

[Torie]

"Is there a functional difference between a pseudo-node and the actual node? If the result is the same either way, it is far easier to describe the process in terms of actual locations that are easily defined. Then I apply the rule that allows crossing the cut out subunit, even if you start within it, and the result should be the common sense result that Nimishillen is connected to the four adjacent townships."

So this only applies when a subunit node is located in a foreign node? Is that the general rule? The functional difference, is that the subunit without a node located within it, has a node in a different location than the pseudo-node would be located in. And then the question, is would that result in any map distortions, and/or anomalies, that would otherwise be avoided by following the usual practice of each subunit having a node, as opposed to where it does not, essentially combining the two subunits for erosity measurement purposes. Have I stated what is in play here correctly?

Until I complained, you created a pseudo-node with Leroy, so it is not as if the very concept of a pseudo-node causes for you a reflexive negative reaction in the way that say the words "Trump/Cruz" causes with me.

[Torie]

"I used a pseudo-node when there was no political unit in play as in the county chop that lacked the county seat."

Which I didn't like, but you assured me didn't matter as to the result, but I would be more comfortable if it died, and only apply where the entirety of the a subunit has no node.

I will deal with the balance of your post tomorrow.

[Torie]

As a general rule, we want to create an incentive to unite the township fragments. Areas that are surrounded by another area should be ignored. They can go in either CD. Some states laws I think allow a CD to not be contiguous if the lack of contiguity involves uniting a split township or city or whatever. So if by the surrounded area, you mean the bit of Plain Township that seems surrounded on all sides of Canton City to the northeast of Hills and Dales, that should be ignored.

Thus, if Plain Township is all in one CD separate from Canton City, we just have one highway cut between Canton City and Plain Township, with a second, but one one additional cut, between Canton Township and Plain Township, ignoring that Canton township is fragmented by Meyers Lake.

If Fairhope is in the Canton City CD, chopping Plain Township, I think that should create another cut if the township to the east is in another CD, and there is a road cut involved. If the township to the east is in the Canton City CD, then no highway cut is involved, obviously. So, putting Fairhope in either CD is a freebie, unless it involves another highway cut to the township to the east, because that township is in another CD. The idea is that the fragments don't create highway cuts arising from Canton City biting into Plain Township, or Meyers Lake creating a Canton Township fragment, but the fragments could create another highway cut vis a vis adjacent townships.

I hope this makes sense. Below are images in relevant part of the highway cut results, with the black lines being cuts, and the red lines not counting as cuts. I didn't focus on where the nodes were for this exercise. The concept behind the red lines is to avoid being punished for getting a subunit's fragments together.

[Torie]

I think I follow, with one exception. In the left figure with the Plain chop there is a red link between Plain twp and Canton twp near Meyers Lake. I would have thought that it would switch to black when Plain was chopped. If you wouldn't switch it, why, and is there any circumstance where you would have a black link between Plain twp and Canton twp?

The red line I guess should really be between Meyers Lake and Canton, and that involves rewarding keeping Canton township whole, which causes potentially for there to be a highway cut from Meyers to Canton townships absent the reward. But I am not sure what happens, or should happen, where the road from the node in Meyers travels through Canton township on the way to Canton City. The node of Canton township lies elsewhere, and if that Canton township salient there were part of Canton City, there would be a highway cut. What happens where there is this intervening salient of Canton township without a node? Does that "cleanse" the highway cut in all events?

I guess for this exercise each fragment should be deemed to have a node where the fragmented township is chopped, but not where there is no chop. In that event, if Canton township is chopped, there is deemed a node in that tiny bit next to Meyers Lake creating a chop between it and Canton City, but if not chopped, there is no highway cut between Meyers Lake and Canton township.

Does that make sense?

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.

[Torie]

Before I parse the text, are you in agreement with my basic concept?

[Torie]

Before I parse the text, are you in agreement with my basic concept?

I think so, though I have generalized some of the specific conclusions. I'm also offering a way out of the Meyers Lake issue that generally comports with your map, but may not specifically be the result you intend depending on how I parse the question mark in your example.

"Generalized" leaves me a bit nervous. Are we uncertain as to whether there are other imbedded effects in what is generalized? How do you propose to parse the question mark? It would seem to be another cut, if one views the Canton township fragment as having its own node when copped somewhere. The other cut is to Canton City, a separate subunit. You get two cuts because two separate subunits are in play.

[Torie]

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)?

[Torie]

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? 

[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.

[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?

[Torie]

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.