Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fixing administrative borders

[Julien Fastré]

I have too much work those days for keeping me up to date to
osm-threads, but what I read here is interessant.

*May I suggest to ask someone to make a proposition and organise a
vote* : I think it worth trying to reach legitimacy and global
agreement about our discussions here, and do not speak about this
until... the next reform of our Constitution/Grondwet...

Julien

2011/6/13 Gerard Vanderveken 
>
> 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
>



--
Julien FASTRE
http://www.meta-morphoses.be

___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fixing administrative borders

[Gerard Vanderveken]

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

[Benoit Leseul]

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

[Ben Laenen]

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

[Gerard Vanderveken]

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

[Nicolas Pettiaux]

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fixing administrative borders

[Kurt Roeckx]

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fixing administrative borders

[Ben Laenen]

Gerard Vanderveken wrote:
> Level 10 could be used for hamlets, these are small local communities,
> often some residential landuse around a little church or chapel.
> They have always been part of a muncipality or village. eg Terlanen in
> Overijse (boundary not yet mapped or defined)
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=4.5929214859&minlat=50.7602102661&maxl
> on=4.61292196274&maxlat=50.7802140808 But for some, it will not be evident
> to know the borders (Atlas?) and mosttimes it will stay by only be mapped
> as place
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/473147300
> 
> I guess you could use this level 10 also for districts (as eg in
> Antwerp), or should we use 11, for not conflicting with hamlets?

Districts in Antwerp are just a special kind of deelgemeenten/sections (the 
"villages" you speak of). It basically means that we get to elect a district 
counsel as well when there are city counsel elections, and so districts have a 
little bit of power as well, whereas deelgemeenten/sections have no own 
governing body. But districts and deelgemeenten/sections have to stay at the 
same level (9), because districts are deelgemeenten.

The level 10 as said in an earlier message could be used to define 
"neighbourhoods", and in Antwerp these are more or less well defined, take for 
example the district of Antwerp in the city of Antwerp (check the "wijken" 
table at http://district.antwerpen.be/ ), where each neighbourhood has a 
street list. Drawing boundaries from those may be still a bit of a challenge 
though, and I'm not sure if we want to have them at all. Furthermore, I have 
no idea how or even if other municipalities handle neighbourhoods.


> For clarity, the table of muncipalities should be extended with a column
> to indicate the muncipality of the village (level 9)
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Boundaries#Municipal
> ities_and_deelgemeentes

I don't know what you mean? The darker gray lines in the table are the 
municipalities, the lighter gray ones are the deelgemeenten/sections of the 
municipality above it.

But the table is horribly out of date since a few guys started to draw all 
municipality boundaries in Flanders.

Greetings
Ben

___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fixing administrative borders

[Gerard Vanderveken]

Benoit Leseul wrote:


On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 20:27, Ben Laenen  wrote:
 


Benoit Leseul wrote:
   


On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:18, Luc Van den Troost  wrote:
 


[...]
Comunities are made up of people, not of area. So putting
communitie-borders on the map is kind of insane.
   


In terms of boundaries, the belgian constitution defines four
linguistic areas ("régions linguistiques"/"taalgebieden") but not
communities as geographical entities.

See Art. 4 :
http://www.senate.be/doc/const_nl.html#t1
http://www.senate.be/doc/const_fr.html#t1
http://www.senate.be/deutsch/const_de.html#t1

They are all contained into regional boundaries and are identical to
the regions except for the "deutsche Sprachgebiet".

I think that's what should be mapped at that level (be it 4 or 5) and
it would solve the overlap problem.
 


The idea was to map the communities according to those language areas. If
everyone agrees to map these language areas instead of communities, fine by
me, but I just thought it would be odd to see something like "région bilingue
de Bruxelles-Capitale - tweetalige gebied Brussel-Hoofdstad" appear on the
map,
   



Sure it's not pretty, but possibly less odd than overlapping areas and
bigger sublevels than their upper counterparts.
Maybe the name could be reduced to something like "Région de
Bruxelles-Capitale - Brussel-Hoofdstad" since the bilingual aspect can
be implied by the double name.

 


and because it then looks like the maps you can find on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communities,_regions_and_language_areas_of_Belgium
which are the maps everyone learns it with at school as well.
   



That's probably an oversimplification, the maps are showing competence
areas, not areas per se.
Also, I don't know that any OSM renderer shows overlapping areas with
a hatched texture.

But yeah, "It's complicated" and I'm not sure everyone would agree one
way or another.
It will look strange and complex in both cases, but so is reality :)

In fact for the governement, there are no overlaps. The administrative 
level for federal, community and region is equal and shared.
However in OSM, we can not share these levels and so we have choosen 
that federal has level 2, region has 4 and community has 5 .
(in the wiki 5 is mentioned as communities/provinces, but I would state 
there simply 'language communnity', because provinces has nothing to do 
with that)
Further on, there are two administrative sublevels, provinces (6) and 
muncipalities (8).
The level between 6 and 8, arrondissement (7) is more a judicial or 
political (voting) level.

I don't know if we realy have to map that as administrative boundary.
(You have also another level between muncipality and arrondissement, not 
yet defined in OSM and that is the kanton)


As for the ordering of the levels, relations can lists others as subareas.

According to the law, Belgium has 3 regions (Vlaanderen, Wallonië en 
Brussel) which are formed by provinces (except Brussels) and 3 
communnities responsible for their part of the 4 language regions which 
are all formed by the muncipalities.

What should we map from this?
- the regions (level 4) as subarea of Belgium (2)
- the provinces (level 6) as subarea of the regions (4)
- the muncipalities (level 8) as subarea of the provinces (6) and 
communities (5) (and eventually the arrondissements (7))
I don't think that it will add anything, but confusion by defining other 
levels as subarea to certain levels as eg communities to Belgium or 
arrondissements to provinces.

Maybe this could also as guidelines be added to the wiki.

I see that the French Community for the moment incorporates the German  
Community (Muncipalities: Amel, Büllingen, Burg-Reuland, Bütgenbach, 
Eupen, Kelmis, Lontzen, Raeren und St.Vith)

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/78967
These muncipalities need some borders as they seems now to be confined 
in Verviers.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1407211
This is not correct.
Seems also that the German Community itself is not yet defined
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Boundaries#Communities_.28Gemeenschappen_.2F_Communaut.C3.A9s_.2F_Gemeinschaften.29

Some communities has language facilities for other language groups, and 
altough the other community may have some competences there as 
organising school, does not mean that this muncipality is also part of 
that community. I don't think there is a mapping of these language 
facilities in OSM or that it should be desirable.


Other levels are the villages (9) which form the muncipalities (8) and 
were independent muncipalities before the reform of 1977

eg Boechout
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/76297
in Boechout
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/76278 
These could be listed as subarea in the relation too.


Level 10 could be used for hamlets, these are small local communities, 
often some residential landuse around a little church or chapel.
They have always 

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fixing administrative borders

[Benoit Leseul]

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 20:27, Ben Laenen  wrote:
> Benoit Leseul wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:18, Luc Van den Troost  wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > Comunities are made up of people, not of area. So putting
>> > communitie-borders on the map is kind of insane.
>>
>> In terms of boundaries, the belgian constitution defines four
>> linguistic areas ("régions linguistiques"/"taalgebieden") but not
>> communities as geographical entities.
>>
>> See Art. 4 :
>> http://www.senate.be/doc/const_nl.html#t1
>> http://www.senate.be/doc/const_fr.html#t1
>> http://www.senate.be/deutsch/const_de.html#t1
>>
>> They are all contained into regional boundaries and are identical to
>> the regions except for the "deutsche Sprachgebiet".
>>
>> I think that's what should be mapped at that level (be it 4 or 5) and
>> it would solve the overlap problem.
>
> The idea was to map the communities according to those language areas. If
> everyone agrees to map these language areas instead of communities, fine by
> me, but I just thought it would be odd to see something like "région bilingue
> de Bruxelles-Capitale - tweetalige gebied Brussel-Hoofdstad" appear on the
> map,

Sure it's not pretty, but possibly less odd than overlapping areas and
bigger sublevels than their upper counterparts.
Maybe the name could be reduced to something like "Région de
Bruxelles-Capitale - Brussel-Hoofdstad" since the bilingual aspect can
be implied by the double name.

> and because it then looks like the maps you can find on
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communities,_regions_and_language_areas_of_Belgium
> which are the maps everyone learns it with at school as well.

That's probably an oversimplification, the maps are showing competence
areas, not areas per se.
Also, I don't know that any OSM renderer shows overlapping areas with
a hatched texture.

But yeah, "It's complicated" and I'm not sure everyone would agree one
way or another.
It will look strange and complex in both cases, but so is reality :)

-- 
Benoit

___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fixing administrative borders

[Ben Laenen]

Benoit Leseul wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:18, Luc Van den Troost  wrote:
> > [...]
> > Comunities are made up of people, not of area. So putting
> > communitie-borders on the map is kind of insane.
> 
> In terms of boundaries, the belgian constitution defines four
> linguistic areas ("régions linguistiques"/"taalgebieden") but not
> communities as geographical entities.
> 
> See Art. 4 :
> http://www.senate.be/doc/const_nl.html#t1
> http://www.senate.be/doc/const_fr.html#t1
> http://www.senate.be/deutsch/const_de.html#t1
> 
> They are all contained into regional boundaries and are identical to
> the regions except for the "deutsche Sprachgebiet".
> 
> I think that's what should be mapped at that level (be it 4 or 5) and
> it would solve the overlap problem.

The idea was to map the communities according to those language areas. If 
everyone agrees to map these language areas instead of communities, fine by 
me, but I just thought it would be odd to see something like "région bilingue 
de Bruxelles-Capitale - tweetalige gebied Brussel-Hoofdstad" appear on the 
map, and because it then looks like the maps you can find on 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communities,_regions_and_language_areas_of_Belgium 
which are the maps everyone learns it with at school as well.

Greetings
Ben

___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fixing administrative borders

[Ben Laenen]

Maarten Deen wrote:
> Then why is this information not on the international page?

Because someone ("Loll78") changed the correct entities in the table last 
January and because I'm not checking each wiki edit?


> There is
> absolutely no reason to have conflicting information on a wiki.
> In this list I am missing single towns. A municipality consists of
> multiple towns. Should it not be: municipality:8, town:9,
> district/deelgemeentes/sections:10?

I have no idea what the concept of a "town" would be in Belgium.


> I assume 10 can be used for sububurbs/wijken too? (does Belgium have
> that concept like the Netherlands?)

Yeah, there is a concept like it in some places, but it's not strictly defined 
as far as I know. Nevertheless I kept the admin_level 10 open for it. I don't 
think there's a level 10 boundary mapped in OSM in Belgium.


> > I've just spent some time yesterday fixing numerous borders in
> > Wallonia which were tagged incorrectly...
> 
> That would probably have been avoided if the international page had
> shown the same information as the national one.

As said, it had the correct info until someone changed it for some reason. And 
if I remember correctly, it's the same person who wrongly mapped those 
boundaries.

Greetings
Ben

___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fixing administrative borders

[Julien Fastré]

I think there were no rules about how the old gemeente/commune were joined
together. It was done with taking into account cultural, political, and
financial arguments.

I think there is no differienciation between gemeente/commune and
city/town/ville/stad. A city/stad/ville in Belgium is a gemeente/commune
with some distinction, but there is no legal diffecientation between them.
In consequence, I don't see why we shoud use the admin_level=town.

Deelgemeenten and disctrict are used in Antwerp, in Liege there is also some
differenciation for the organisation inside the commune/gemeente (CPAS,
service population/dienst bevolking, ...). Wijk/quartier seem more informal:
I also wonder if this is really an "administrative border".

I also suggest that we vote for such proposition... I think it makes sense
in the life of the community, because this is a topic were we could discuss
a lot...

Julien



2011/6/8 Maarten Deen 

> On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 12:10:17 +0200, Julien Fastré wrote:
>
>> What are "towns" and "suburbs" in Belgium ?
>>
>> In Liège, as far as I know, old communes are now the name of some
>> "quartiers" (i do not know the word in english). If I would map them,
>> I would use the disctrict/deelgemeentes/section level... But maybe I
>> am wrong...
>>
>
> Looking a bit further, it could be that in Belgium towns are synonymous
> with deelgemeentes. At least when I look at <
> http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lijst_van_gemeenten_in_het_Vlaams_Gewest>.
>
> This would suggest that before the communal reshufflings in 1960-1970, a
> gemeente/commune would only consist of one town. Is that true?
> That's a bit different from the Netherlands where there were (also in the
> past) almost always more than one town in a gemeente.
> And then the info in the belgian page (which I have also put on the global
> page) would be complete.
>
> Maarten
>
>
>  2011/6/8 Maarten Deen
>>
>>  On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 11:22:28 +0200, Andre Engels wrote:
>>>
>>>  On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Maarten Deen wrote:

  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
>>
>
> Then why is this information not on the international page?
> There is
> absolutely no reason to have conflicting information on a
> wiki.
> In this list I am missing single towns. A municipality
> consists of multiple
> towns. Should it not be: municipality:8, town:9,
> district/deelgemeentes/sections:10?
> I assume 10 can be used for sububurbs/wijken too? (does
> Belgium have that
> concept like the Netherlands?)
>

 'Deelgemeente' in Belgium is a different concept than in the
 Netherlands. They are former municipalities, which in the 1960s
 or
 1970s have fused into larger municipalities. Thus, a
 deelgemeente/district/section is more like a town than like a
 wijk.

>>>
>>> Ok, I've also looked at wikipedia, to me it seems that from low
>>> admin_level to high it should be:
>>> - Municipality (Gemeente/Commune)
>>> - Deelgemeente/district
>>> - Town
>>> - Suburb (Wijk)
>>>
>>> That would then suggest that everything from region down should be
>>> dropped one admin_level:
>>>
>>> country: level 2
>>> regions: level 3
>>> communities: level 4
>>> provinces: level 5
>>> arrondissements: level 6
>>> municipalities: level 7
>>> district/deelgemeentes/sections: level 8
>>> town: level 9
>>> suburb: level 10
>>>
>>> Or start using admin_level=11.
>>>
>>> Maarten
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-be mailing list
>>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org [2]
>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be [3]
>>>
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>



-- 
Julien FASTRE
http://www.meta-morphoses.be
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fixing administrative borders

[Maarten Deen]

On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 12:10:17 +0200, Julien Fastré wrote:

What are "towns" and "suburbs" in Belgium ?

In Liège, as far as I know, old communes are now the name of some
"quartiers" (i do not know the word in english). If I would map them,
I would use the disctrict/deelgemeentes/section level... But maybe I
am wrong...


Looking a bit further, it could be that in Belgium towns are synonymous 
with deelgemeentes. At least when I look at 
.


This would suggest that before the communal reshufflings in 1960-1970, 
a gemeente/commune would only consist of one town. Is that true?
That's a bit different from the Netherlands where there were (also in 
the past) almost always more than one town in a gemeente.
And then the info in the belgian page (which I have also put on the 
global page) would be complete.


Maarten



2011/6/8 Maarten Deen


On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 11:22:28 +0200, Andre Engels wrote:


On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Maarten Deen wrote:


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


Then why is this information not on the international page?
There is
absolutely no reason to have conflicting information on a
wiki.
In this list I am missing single towns. A municipality
consists of multiple
towns. Should it not be: municipality:8, town:9,
district/deelgemeentes/sections:10?
I assume 10 can be used for sububurbs/wijken too? (does
Belgium have that
concept like the Netherlands?)


'Deelgemeente' in Belgium is a different concept than in the
Netherlands. They are former municipalities, which in the 1960s
or
1970s have fused into larger municipalities. Thus, a
deelgemeente/district/section is more like a town than like a
wijk.


Ok, I've also looked at wikipedia, to me it seems that from low
admin_level to high it should be:
- Municipality (Gemeente/Commune)
- Deelgemeente/district
- Town
- Suburb (Wijk)

That would then suggest that everything from region down should be
dropped one admin_level:

country: level 2
regions: level 3
communities: level 4
provinces: level 5
arrondissements: level 6
municipalities: level 7
district/deelgemeentes/sections: level 8
town: level 9
suburb: level 10

Or start using admin_level=11.

Maarten

___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org [2]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be [3]



___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fixing administrative borders

[Julien Fastré]

What are "towns" and "suburbs" in Belgium ?

In Liège, as far as I know, old communes are now the name of some
"quartiers" (i do not know the word in english). If I would map them, I
would use the disctrict/deelgemeentes/section level... But maybe I am
wrong...

But I do not know about any examples of town or suburb...

I do not understand also the link between the tag place=* and admin_level=*.
I think that, in Belgium, we should have to set a place "town" inside a
admin_level "municipalities" because there isn't any official "town"...

For instance: create a relation "boundary=administrative +
admin_level=(municipalities: 7 or 8)" and, inside, a "place=city" if it is
more than 100.000 inhabitants, "place=town" if the municipality counts
between 10.000 and 100.000 inhabitants, ...

But this is a bit unclear for me...
Julien

2011/6/8 Maarten Deen 

> On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 11:22:28 +0200, Andre Engels wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Maarten Deen  wrote:
>>
>>  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

>>>
>>> Then why is this information not on the international page? There is
>>> absolutely no reason to have conflicting information on a wiki.
>>> In this list I am missing single towns. A municipality consists of
>>> multiple
>>> towns. Should it not be: municipality:8, town:9,
>>> district/deelgemeentes/sections:10?
>>> I assume 10 can be used for sububurbs/wijken too? (does Belgium have that
>>> concept like the Netherlands?)
>>>
>>
>> 'Deelgemeente' in Belgium is a different concept than in the
>> Netherlands. They are former municipalities, which in the 1960s or
>> 1970s have fused into larger municipalities. Thus, a
>> deelgemeente/district/section is more like a town than like a wijk.
>>
>
> Ok, I've also looked at wikipedia, to me it seems that from low admin_level
> to high it should be:
> - Municipality (Gemeente/Commune)
> - Deelgemeente/district
> - Town
> - Suburb (Wijk)
>
> That would then suggest that everything from region down should be dropped
> one admin_level:
>
> country: level 2
> regions: level 3
> communities: level 4
> provinces: level 5
> arrondissements: level 6
> municipalities: level 7
> district/deelgemeentes/sections: level 8
> town: level 9
> suburb: level 10
>
> Or start using admin_level=11.
>
> Maarten
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>



-- 
Julien FASTRE
http://www.meta-morphoses.be
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fixing administrative borders

[Benoit Leseul]

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:18, Luc Van den Troost  wrote:
> [...]
> Comunities are made up of people, not of area. So putting
> communitie-borders on the map is kind of insane.

In terms of boundaries, the belgian constitution defines four
linguistic areas ("régions linguistiques"/"taalgebieden") but not
communities as geographical entities.

See Art. 4 :
http://www.senate.be/doc/const_nl.html#t1
http://www.senate.be/doc/const_fr.html#t1
http://www.senate.be/deutsch/const_de.html#t1

They are all contained into regional boundaries and are identical to
the regions except for the "deutsche Sprachgebiet".

I think that's what should be mapped at that level (be it 4 or 5) and
it would solve the overlap problem.

-- 
Benoit

___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fixing administrative borders

[Maarten Deen]

On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 11:22:28 +0200, Andre Engels wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Maarten Deen  
wrote:



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


Then why is this information not on the international page? There is
absolutely no reason to have conflicting information on a wiki.
In this list I am missing single towns. A municipality consists of 
multiple

towns. Should it not be: municipality:8, town:9,
district/deelgemeentes/sections:10?
I assume 10 can be used for sububurbs/wijken too? (does Belgium have 
that

concept like the Netherlands?)


'Deelgemeente' in Belgium is a different concept than in the
Netherlands. They are former municipalities, which in the 1960s or
1970s have fused into larger municipalities. Thus, a
deelgemeente/district/section is more like a town than like a wijk.


Ok, I've also looked at wikipedia, to me it seems that from low 
admin_level to high it should be:

- Municipality (Gemeente/Commune)
- Deelgemeente/district
- Town
- Suburb (Wijk)

That would then suggest that everything from region down should be 
dropped one admin_level:


country: level 2
regions: level 3
communities: level 4
provinces: level 5
arrondissements: level 6
municipalities: level 7
district/deelgemeentes/sections: level 8
town: level 9
suburb: level 10

Or start using admin_level=11.

Maarten



___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fixing administrative borders

[Andre Engels]

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Maarten Deen  wrote:

>> 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
>
> Then why is this information not on the international page? There is
> absolutely no reason to have conflicting information on a wiki.
> In this list I am missing single towns. A municipality consists of multiple
> towns. Should it not be: municipality:8, town:9,
> district/deelgemeentes/sections:10?
> I assume 10 can be used for sububurbs/wijken too? (does Belgium have that
> concept like the Netherlands?)

'Deelgemeente' in Belgium is a different concept than in the
Netherlands. They are former municipalities, which in the 1960s or
1970s have fused into larger municipalities. Thus, a
deelgemeente/district/section is more like a town than like a wijk.


-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com

___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fixing administrative borders

[Luc Van den Troost]

Hi,

I made the same remark as Ralf about the 'level 5 - comunities'
borders some years ago, but at that time I got the impression it 'is
not something you should discuss about'...

Comunities are made up of people, not of area. So putting
communitie-borders on the map is kind of insane.

Just didn't want to start a civil- or mapping war about that at that
time, don't even know if a discussion about that on a Belgian forum is
possible at all.

Do you want to put a level 5 border around a Flemish school in
Brussels, or around a French speaking school in the
'faciliteitengemeenten'? A moving border if a Flemish class visits the
cascades of coo?

Luc / Speedy

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:04 AM, 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
>
> I've just spent some time yesterday fixing numerous borders in Wallonia which
> were tagged incorrectly...
>
> Greetings
> Ben
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>

___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fixing administrative borders

[Maarten Deen]

On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 11:04:56 +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


Then why is this information not on the international page? There is 
absolutely no reason to have conflicting information on a wiki.
In this list I am missing single towns. A municipality consists of 
multiple towns. Should it not be: municipality:8, town:9, 
district/deelgemeentes/sections:10?
I assume 10 can be used for sububurbs/wijken too? (does Belgium have 
that concept like the Netherlands?)



I've just spent some time yesterday fixing numerous borders in
Wallonia which were tagged incorrectly...


That would probably have been avoided if the international page had 
shown the same information as the national one.


Maarten

___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fixing administrative borders

[Ben Laenen]

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

I've just spent some time yesterday fixing numerous borders in Wallonia which 
were tagged incorrectly...

Greetings
Ben



___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

[OSM-talk-be] Fixing administrative borders

[Ralf Hermanns]

Hello,

thanks to all for the great work on the OSM map in general and the Belgium data 
in special.
I did already benefit a lot from the work done, and I'd like to contribute to 
this great project too, but I am unsure how.

At the moment I am most interested in getting the borders for administrative 
units, from the country as whole down to towns and communes, for Belgium 
straightened out (=relations tagged with boundaries=administrative and 
admin_level=2-10)

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)

I am not sure which page describes the better solution and what way I need to 
look at data now.
I'd like to fix the "old" data to match "new" level guide, but I am afraid of 
touching anything until I know which way is the "right" one and which one is 
the "wrong" version!


My personal opinion (just my private thoughts at the moment) would be that only 
provinces should be on level 5 (as the tag:boundary page describes)

I would move the language-based communites out of the admin_level-tagged 
hierarchy completly and also not use boundary=administrative (can we use 
boundary=language or something?)


My reasons for this is that the language communites are not administrative 
borders (or are they? Please correct me if I am wrong here, no expert at all 
with this), but my even stronger point is that you got overlapping and 
"growing" areas while going down the hierarchy:

For example the relation http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/78967 
(french speaking community) is tagged as admin_level 5, and it includes the 
brussels area (because it is bi-lingual), while the relation "above" 
(admin_level 4) http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/90348 (the Walloon 
Region) does not include Brussels (as it is it's own region). The "area" grows 
bigger while moving down hierarchy levels.
The same of course happens if you see it from the flemish speaking community on 
level 5 against the Flemish region on level 4.


The french speaking community also completly overlaps the german language 
community in east Belgium (my home place). This is technically absolutely 
correct, both language do co-exists here, but in terms of tagging 
administrative boundaries there should be no overlapping in my eyes - but 
again, not sure about this either.


I know that language is a delicate topic with Belgium currently, so please do 
not feel offended, let's try to discuss and find a solution for everybody, ok?

Thanks!
Ralf

___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be