Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fixing administrative borders
Benoit Leseul wrote: Hi, On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:16, Ben Laenen wrote: ... My main concern is to somehow discern the border of the German language area (after all, it's the only border not at level 4). I don't know if it's realistic, but maybe the German language area could be the only thing mapped at level 5, the other borders being obvious? If it's not, I stand by my proposition to tag language areas (in the constitutional sense) instead of communities. We are not responsible for the choices made by the governement ;-) , we map (the mess) as it is. There is no German region, and thus no boundary at level 4. There is only the community at level 5 comprising the Muncipalities of Amel, Büllingen, Burg-Reuland, Bütgenbach, Eupen, Kelmis, Lontzen, Raeren und St.Vith Because at the governement the regions and communities are on equal level and we have choosen in OSM to give them a different level (which I support), you can not make assumptions on level 4 areas comprising level 5 things and vice versa. So the whole discussion with overlaps etc in OSM is pointless. Belgium is illogical and complicated and this will also show on the mapping. [Joking] (If someone is involved in the current governement negociations, maybe they can ask for a region and province, etc for Brussels and the German East Kantons too, so we can map this properly at all levels?) [/Joking] The language regions should IMHO not be mapped , and certainly not on the administrative boundary level. Regards, Gerard. ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fixing administrative borders
Hi, On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:16, Ben Laenen wrote: > ... > My main concern is to somehow discern the border of the German language area > (after all, it's the only border not at level 4). I don't know if it's realistic, but maybe the German language area could be the only thing mapped at level 5, the other borders being obvious? If it's not, I stand by my proposition to tag language areas (in the constitutional sense) instead of communities. -- Benoit ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fixing administrative borders
Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 11:04:56AM +0200, Ben Laenen wrote: > > country: level 2 > > regions: level 4 > > communities: level 5 > > provinces: level 6 > > arrondissements: level 7 > > municipalities: level 8 > > district/deelgemeentes/sections: level 9 > > This is atleast how it used to be, and what I've always used. > > I have some comments about this. > > I think we should not map level 5, because it's more about people > than it is about land. Brussels is part of both the Dutch and the > French community, and last time I looked at it, it was also > properly mapped like that. > > Brussels is also special in that it doesn't belong to any > province. So it ends up with no level 6 and 2 level 5s, > and a whole level 4 for itself. > > But my biggest problem with level 5 is that it's not actually > a sublevel of 4, if mapped it would make more sense to be at > the same level as the regions. But for obvious reasons, we can't do that. > And maybe we should map the 4 language regions too, if you > really want to go and map everything. My main concern is to somehow discern the border of the German language area (after all, it's the only border not at level 4). But then again, the German language area is the only a part of the province of Liege which would put those admin levels upside-down again. But does that matter that higher admin levels aren't simply subdivisions of lower admin levels? I personally don't think there's a problem with that. > I also have a problem with level 7. We have 3 tpes of > arrondissements: > - Administrative (43 of them) > - Judicial (27 of them) > - Voting (depends) We're mapping the administrative arrondissements. > I would also like to point out that the name of the tag implies > administration levels, so if you would want to map the > arrondissements, it should be the administrative level. But > I'm not sure adding them to the map adds any value when using > the administrative level, as there isn't any real administration > at that level. Well, they're called "administrative arrondissements" for a reason, even though they don't have some kind of government. I agree that the reason to have arrondissements is disappearing (it used to be more important), but as long as they exist, there's no reason not to map them. > When only considering to map administrative levels, it would also > mean that you can't map any sub-municipalities at level 9 because > they don't have any administration, at least most don't. But I do > think that mapping at level 9 where possible is useful. Administrative does not mean that it should have a government. But the boundaries of deelgemeenten/sections are well defined, and even though only the deelgemeenten in Antwerp have real administrative value, we have to tag the other deelgemeenten with the same tags. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Region has a proposal to map regions differently, and has some examples we could use for the other arrondissements: > Maybe some of those things shouldn't be mapped as an > administrative, but could be on the map with some other tag. > We have 3 types of arrondissements: > - Judicial (27 of them) boundary=legal further divided into gerechtelijke kantons/cantons judiciaires Also, several judicial arrondissements together form a gerechtelijk gebied http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerechtelijk_gebied > - Voting (depends) boundary=electoral further divided into kieskantons/cantons électoraux And again, several electoral arrondissements are combined into "kieskringen" Greetings Ben ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fixing administrative borders
Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 11:04:56AM +0200, Ben Laenen wrote: Ralf Hermanns wrote: I think there is conflicting information here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative and here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Boundaries On the Tag:boundary=administrative page (first link) it says communities/provinces go on level 5 and arrondisments on 6 - while on the subproject page it only list the language communites on level 5 and puts provinces onto 6 (thereby moving arrondisments and towns further down) Don't have much time to reply, so a short one: Always look at the country specific page to get the answers. The international page is just there for some "guiding", but the countries have to make their own rules. As is the case for Belgium. country: level 2 regions: level 4 communities: level 5 provinces: level 6 arrondissements: level 7 municipalities: level 8 district/deelgemeentes/sections: level 9 This is atleast how it used to be, and what I've always used. I have some comments about this. I think we should not map level 5, because it's more about people than it is about land. Brussels is part of both the Dutch and the French community, and last time I looked at it, it was also properly mapped like that. Brussels is also special in that it doesn't belong to any province. So it ends up with no level 6 and 2 level 5s, and a whole level 4 for itself. But my biggest problem with level 5 is that it's not actually a sublevel of 4, if mapped it would make more sense to be at the same level as the regions. And maybe we should map the 4 language regions too, if you really want to go and map everything. I also have a problem with level 7. We have 3 tpes of arrondissements: - Administrative (43 of them) - Judicial (27 of them) - Voting (depends) I would also like to point out that the name of the tag implies administration levels, so if you would want to map the arrondissements, it should be the administrative level. But I'm not sure adding them to the map adds any value when using the administrative level, as there isn't any real administration at that level. When only considering to map administrative levels, it would also mean that you can't map any sub-municipalities at level 9 because they don't have any administration, at least most don't. But I do think that mapping at level 9 where possible is useful. Maybe some of those things shouldn't be mapped as an administrative, but could be on the map with some other tag. Kurt ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be I agree very much: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/2011-June/002099.html Level 4 & 5 : In reallity they are equal., but in OSM I prefer a separate level as it is now the case. Both (region and community) deserve administrative boundary, as they have their parliaments. If language regions are to be mapped, then certainly with another tag then administrative boundary (maybe language or etnic boundary???). Problem: How to map bilingual or facilities? But I don't think this is needed or desirable to map in OSM. Level 7 are the administrative arrondissements, the other could be mapped with judical and political boundary. But as said earlier, I would maybe take the administrative arrondissements out and move to another kind of boundary as rendering this will not very useful and cluthering the map. Level 9 is very useful, as some streets cross several sub-muncipalities, it is very helpful as you know eg Leuvensebaan Sint-Agatha-Rode or Leuvensebaan Ottenburg: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/24486112 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/40148432 Regards, Gerard. ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fixing administrative borders
Dear all, I like this discussion that so far I have only read as it shows clearly that citizens speaking both Flemish and French, living everywhere in Begium, can really cooperate and discuss in a constructive way to work the difficult task to map the reality that has been legally decided. We may come with interesting conclusions that some levels/parts ... are irrealistic or impossible to map from one level to another, and that this would need further discussions by politicians AND citizens in directions that may not have been taken so far. I do NOT want us to do any politics but only maybe come up with creative ideas coming from people involved more at the technical level. I hope I am well understood. Thanks for this interesting thread again. Best regards, Nicolas -- Nicolas Pettiaux, dr. sc - gsm : 0496 24 55 01 ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
