Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Updates type for LA metro sectors IDs (la_metro_sector) #209

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Updates type for LA metro sectors IDs (la_metro_sector) #209

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

jswiesner
Copy link
Contributor

There were 4 IDs introduced in #139 which contain OCD ID types (la_metro_sector) that are specific to one region, and therefore conceptually invalid. The OCD ID type should only provide the nature of the district, while the value should provide the specific location.

I'd like to propose updating these IDs to instead use type transit. These districts appear to refer to service areas of the LA county metro system (https://media.metro.net/about_us/service_sectors/images/map_service_councils.pdf), therefore the generic type transit seems most suitable.

@jswiesner
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @reginafcompton. It would be great to get your opinion about this proposed change.

@reginafcompton
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @jswiesner – currently, I'm not involved in the OCD project. I'd suggest pinging Hannah Cushman, who supports LA Metro Councilmatic and its scrapers. Her insight will be more valuable than mine!

@jloutsenhizer
Copy link
Contributor

Using a more generic transit type makes sense to me, we should also add sameAs annotations to map the old OCD IDs that used la_metro_sector to the new ones.

Pinging @hancush to provide thoughts on this change.

hancush
hancush requested changes Feb 11, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@hancush hancush left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Seems reasonable to me, @jswiesner – thanks for the PR! As @jloutsenhizer suggested, please preserve the original identifiers by adding the revised identifier to the sameAs field, then adding the revised identifiers as new records. Relevant docs, if needed.

@jpmckinney jpmckinney added the US label Jun 25, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@hancush hancush hancush requested changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
US
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
5 participants
@jswiesner @reginafcompton @jloutsenhizer @hancush @jpmckinney