looks like the real next question is how to define these areas boundaries. We need to ensure there is clear definition of the boundaries from an allowed source (Maybe Census or a State Website).

And to further Banished point, lack of GPS may reflect cellular coverage now but we should also always be mindful that there could be future growth in usage in this area. Being proactive as in this case will help prevent future issues.

Great discussion.

Be cautious not to interpret lack of GPS tracks as no one using those roads unless there is clear evidence of cellular coverage.

Well from a pros & cons perspective...

From the amount of GPS tracks, it looks like pretty much nobody travels up there - save for the occasional windmill farm (and I saw a few in Satellite View) or other municipal functions. However for people who might have to get to those remote locations, I think they'd find a township name beneficial for marking "favorite" locations in their app.

As far as downsides / cons to adding these townships... Are there any? If not I'd be happy to update the Wazeo page.

-BC

moogonk wrote:At this point, I think we're only looking at updating our wiki page to include the names of the unincorporated areas.

Yes, that's all I was proposing.

And even though I didn't see any GPS tracks, there are obviously some roads in the area which are traveled. Besides - looks like a cool place to open a ski area someday...

-BC

I would agree with adding the 25 official unincorporated places, as they are recognized by the state and have clear boundaries.

johnsninja58 wrote:looks like the real next question is how to define these areas boundaries. We need to ensure there is clear definition of the boundaries from an allowed source (Maybe Census or a State Website).

And to further Banished point, lack of GPS may reflect cellular coverage now but we should also always be mindful that there could be future growth in usage in this area. Being proactive as in this case will help prevent future issues.

Great discussion.

GranitView has the boundaries: https://granitview.unh.edu/html5viewer/ ... ranit_view

As does the NH DOT Roads site: http://gis.dot.nh.gov/nh-roads/

I also support this idea of adding the Grants/Unincorporated places to the official listing and map.
I think using these places is easier and more clear for new editors.

As I have been working on the SC Map raid, I've been working on areas outside of city limits where the local guidance is to check "none" for city. In my (limited) experience having streets with no cities seems to add confusion and inconsistency as people come in and edit adding neighboring cities or unofficial cities. We see that already in NH with roads in Dixville, Odell, and others already labeled as being in those "cities" even though they aren't on the Wazeopedia NH City and Town list.

Since these geographic areas have officially recognized names with the State of NH, I think using the names is going to add consistency to the map. In contrast, having "no city roads" is going to lead to people trying to add city names and make the map less consistent.

I agree that it's reasonable to add this to the official listing - both for the reason that it's been there without complaints, and that it's actually on the pdf map that Bob referenced -- which is of course the one referenced at the wazeopedia NH cities and towns page.

Another consideration is to add the "Unincorporated places" listed at the bottom of the NH web site (https://www.nh.gov/municipal/) to be consistent in this regard.

I don't see any cons, assuming that the choice of including unincorporated area is not capricious or subject to interpretation. And since it's coming from an official state document, I agree that it's neither arbitrary nor capricious.