[9rx]

> Especially in rural (or really, anything that isn’t urban) areas

What isn't urban but also not rural?

I've seen disagreement over exactly where urban begins. A density of ~400 people per km², with a minimum of 1-2,000 people is a common definition, although the OECD targets a density of 1,500 people per km², with a minimum of 7,000 people, to capture all the variation throughout the nations it tracks. Regardless, in all those cases "rural" always encompasses that which falls short of what constitutes urban.

I've never heard of this alternate state you speak of.

[simoncion]

> What isn't urban but also not rural?

The sub-urban regions. All the suburbs I've been in (and I'd wager nearly all of the US suburbs in existence) require you to have a vehicle to go about your day... unless you work from home and have everything delivered to you, I guess.

[9rx]

The particular urban subset that you speak of that is also literally named as such is still within the urban set, so that's clearly not it.

[simoncion]

It's true that the word 'urban' is a substring match for the word 'suburban'. You're right about that.

[9rx]

Correct, but irrelevant. Suburban is a subset of urban, not the other way around — originally referring to the portion of an urban area found outside of the wall.

The physical walls aren't often found anymore, but the term still refers to an urban area that surrounds where a wall might have been placed historically.

[simoncion]

> Suburban is ... originally referring to...

Like you said, this is irrelevant. Cities aren't planned or built like that, and really haven't been... since the founding of the USA, at the very latest. (If they were, the Brits would have had a much more difficult time capturing D.C. than they did.)

[9rx]

Nice history lesson that you've written for absolutely no reason, but we still don't know what there is other than rural and urban. Pointlessly pointing out obvious things like that there can be suburbs within urban areas, like there can be hamlets in rural areas, does not answer the question or serve any purpose whatsoever.

[sgarland]

From Merriam-Webster:

> suburb (noun):

> a: an outlying part of a city or town

> b: a smaller community adjacent to or within commuting distance of a city

> c: suburbs plural : the residential area on the outskirts of a city or large town

I strongly suspect that if you polled random people, they would say something along the lines of b or c.

There are also exurbs, whose definition further drives home the point that it isn’t binary:

> a region or settlement that lies outside a city and usually beyond its suburbs and that often is inhabited chiefly by well-to-do families

[9rx]

> I strongly suspect that if you polled random people, they would say something along the lines of b or c.

Yes they would. Absolutely. Which means that they clearly see it as being outskirts of a city or town, not the outskirts of an urban area. You even say so yourself. It is literally written as such.

> There are also exurbs, whose definition further drives home the point that it isn’t binary:

You did the same thing again: Outside a city, not outside of an urban area. Of course there are different community types within urban areas, just as there different community types within rural areas: e.g. hamlets, villages, small towns, it is even technically possible, albeit unusual, for a city to be rural! For example, Greenwood, British Columbia is both a city and rural.

[sgarland]

Dude, take it from someone who is mildly autistic, and spent a very long time being staunchly prescriptivist: you’re being ridiculously pedantic, and no one cares.

Have a nice day.

[9rx]

If you don't care, why take time out of your day to formulate a message?

But, regardless, it is quite delusional to think that I would write for anyone but myself. Nobody is paying me to be here. It can only ever be for myself. As I care, that is more than satisfactory. It makes absolutely no difference what other people have to say about it. It was never for them.