Re: [OSM-talk-be] question on relation 2404021

[André Pirard]

On 2013-11-03 14:04, Marc brassieres wrote :
>
> 2013/11/3 André Pirard  >
>
> On 2013-11-03 01:00, André Pirard wrote :
>> On 2013-11-02 23:04, marc bessieres wrote :
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> After starting updating the wiki on quality assurance tools. I
>>> spent some time correcting the issues in Brussels.
>>> Now I start finding issues I don't have enough knowledge to fix
>>> alone.
>>> I assume it is better to send a mail per issue, so I start here
>>> with:
>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/240402
>>>
>>> There is a FIXME in it before its boundaries are not complete.
>>>
>>> For me it looks a lot like:
>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/58274
>>>
>>> which has a complete boundary.
>>> But one is Bruxelles, and the other is Ville de Bruxelles.
>>>
>>> I must admit I don't understand the differences.
>>>
>>> My idea would be to merge the extra data of  the former into the
>>> latter. And remove the former.
>>> But as they are each in the relation of the other I may miss
>>> something or someone would have done the merge already, so here
>>> I am asking for a piece of advice.
>>>
>>> What should be done with:
>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/240402
>>>
>>> Thank you in advance,
>>> Marc
>>>
>>
>> You should certainly not delete anything before you have fully
>> understood the very complicated administrative structures of our
>> country ;-)  You may notice that we have two Belgiums.
>> Notice that those boundaries are administrative level 8 and level
>> 9, certainly not the same thing and that doing as you say is
>> destroying.
>> I have mapped thousands of kilometers of boundaries in Belgium
>> and I might have a closer look at that if you want, but not just
>> right now.  Boundaries are complicated things.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> André.
>>
>>
> *
> Ville/Stad* de Bruxelles is in fact a *Commune/Gemeente* made of 4
> anciennes communes/deelgemeenten Brussels, La(e)ken,
> Neder-Over-Heembeek and Haren.
> What you see incomplete is the first one, but the other ones are
> incomplete too.
> The boundaries between them are missing. They must be added with
> the right name and the four boundaries must be closed over them.
> My only problem is finding the missing pieces if I do that, but I
> know where to look for them.
>
> Cheers,
>
> André.
>
>
> Thank you André for your explanations, I saw the administrative level
> difference, but I didn't know how to interpret them. Now I do :)
> If you could find the missing boundaries it'd be perfect! Or tell us
> where to look for them, may be me or someone else in the community can
> help there.
>
> Cheers,
> Marc
>
I found the missing borderlines and I replied:
> ... I added:
> Way: Ville de Bruxelles — Laeken (244722347)
> Way: Ville de Bruxelles — Neder-Over-Heembeek (244722351)
> Way: Ville de Bruxelles — Haren (244691260)
> Way: Laeken — Neder-Over-Heembeek (244722346)
> Way: Haren — Neder-Over-Heembeek (244722345)
As nobody used those borderlines, I finished the job myself.
I added the missing relations for the Brussels municipality sections
(level 9).
I corrected various errors, including a gap in Brussels Capital borderline.

Cheers,

André.


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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] question on relation 2404021

[André Pirard]

On 2013-11-03 22:44, André Pirard wrote :
> On 2013-11-03 17:46, marc bessieres wrote :
>>
>>
>>
>> I would normally look this up in the atlas der buurtwegen / des
>>
>> chemins vicinaux, but I can't find them for Brussels.
>>
>> So I've looked at urbis (http://geoloc.irisnet.be/) which I
>> understand we can use, under extra it has an option to show
>> the municipalities.  But that would only be the one for level
>> 8 and no information about the level 9 since they don't really
>> exist anymore.
>>
>> I suggest you try to find the atlas der buurtwegen / des
>> chemins vicinaux, or the Popp card for that information.
>>
>>
>> PS: The URLs in your e-mail missed the "1" at the end, but it's in
>> the subject.
>>
>> Kurt
>>
>>
>> Thank you Kurt for the pointer, I've looked for how to get this atlas
>> and it seems that
>> one has to go to the "commune", so it would take some time before I
>> can go.
>> Hopefully someone else go do it in between.
>>
>> Sorry for the typo in the URL, I'll try to be more cautious in my
>> copy/paste in the future.
> I think I will find.  But I'm somewhat busy right now
Version 1, as some advocate:
I did and I added:
Ways 244722347, 244722351, 244691260, 244722346 and 244722345.
On the map I used, the area between the first 3 and 23165481 and 30091229...

Version 1, as many others do:
I did and I added:
Way: Ville de Bruxelles — Laeken (244722347)
Way: Ville de Bruxelles — Neder-Over-Heembeek (244722351)
Way: Ville de Bruxelles — Haren (244691260)
Way: Laeken — Neder-Over-Heembeek (244722346)
Way: Haren — Neder-Over-Heembeek (244722345)

On the map I used, the area between the first 3 and
Way: 23165481 and
Way: Ville de Bruxelles — Schaerbeek (30091229)
is called "Bruxelles - Chaussée d"Anvers".
I assumed it belongs to Brussels (level 9).
Tell me if I was wrong, and I'll change it.

I also finished the relation
Relation: Bruxelles / Brussel (2404021)
"admin_level"="9"

Please finish the other relations.

There are errors in the names of the ways of Ville de Bruxelles (8).
3× Ixelles if I recall, etc.  Please fix.

I found 2 pedestrian crossings tags on the boundaries.
Node: 2119787117 and 202477829.  Removed.
Please insist in "how to map a" that they must be on roads
and that roads shouldn't share boundaries.

The precision of the map I used is very close to Irisnet.
But there are significant imprecision in the OSM ways I didn't map.
I made corrections where my ways joined them,
as well as in some places where the offset was more than 20 m.
It would be nice to improve that.

This may be the only map showing the level 9 municipalities of Brussels.
We will probably soon have a full boundary of Laeken in Wikipedia (map).
(Instead of a big nosed face).

Regarding ©.
The law says that the law cannot be copyrighted.
It seems to me that boundaries as well as traffic signs are the law.
I don't expect to find traffic sings in the Moniteur,
but boundaries, or a link thereto, should normally be there.
But is the link invented?  Try to find one in the press.

Cheers,

André.


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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] question on relation 2404021

[André Pirard]

  
  
On 2013-11-03 17:46, marc bessieres
  wrote :


  

  
  I would normally look this up in the
atlas der buurtwegen / des
 chemins
  vicinaux, but I can't find them for Brussels.
  
  So I've looked at urbis (http://geoloc.irisnet.be/)
  which I
  understand we can use, under extra it has an option to
  show
  the municipalities.  But that would only be the one for
  level
  8 and no information about the level 9 since they don't
  really
  exist anymore.
  
  I suggest you try to find the atlas der buurtwegen / des
  chemins vicinaux, or the Popp card for that information.
  
  
  PS: The URLs in your e-mail missed the "1" at the end, but
  it's in
  the subject.
  
  Kurt

  
  

Thank you Kurt for the pointer, I've
  looked for how to get this atlas and it seems that

one has to go to the "commune", so it
  would take some time before I can go.

Hopefully someone else go do it in
  between.
  

Sorry for the typo in the URL, I'll try
  to be more cautious in my copy/paste in the future.

  

I think I will find.  But I'm somewhat busy right now

Cheers, 


  

  André.

  


  


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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] question on relation 2404021

[marc bessieres]

I would normally look this up in the atlas der buurtwegen / des

> chemins vicinaux, but I can't find them for Brussels.
>
> So I've looked at urbis (http://geoloc.irisnet.be/) which I
> understand we can use, under extra it has an option to show
> the municipalities.  But that would only be the one for level
> 8 and no information about the level 9 since they don't really
> exist anymore.
>
> I suggest you try to find the atlas der buurtwegen / des
> chemins vicinaux, or the Popp card for that information.
>
>
> PS: The URLs in your e-mail missed the "1" at the end, but it's in
> the subject.
>
> Kurt
>

Thank you Kurt for the pointer, I've looked for how to get this atlas and
it seems that
one has to go to the "commune", so it would take some time before I can go.
Hopefully someone else go do it in between.

Sorry for the typo in the URL, I'll try to be more cautious in my
copy/paste in the future.

Thank you,
Marc
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] question on relation 2404021

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 02:04:59PM +0100, marc bessieres wrote:
> >
> > * Ville/Stad* de Bruxelles is in fact a *Commune/Gemeente* made of 4
> > anciennes communes/deelgemeenten Brussels, La(e)ken, Neder-Over-Heembeek
> > and Haren.
> > What you see incomplete is the first one, but the other ones are
> > incomplete too.
> > The boundaries between them are missing. They must be added with the right
> > name and the four boundaries must be closed over them. My only problem is
> > finding the missing pieces if I do that, but I know where to look for them.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> >   André.
> >
> Thank you André for your explanations, I saw the administrative level
> difference, but I didn't know how to interpret them. Now I do :)
> If you could find the missing boundaries it'd be perfect! Or tell us where
> to look for them, may be me or someone else in the community can help there.

I would normally look this up in the atlas der buurtwegen / des
chemins vicinaux, but I can't find them for Brussels.

So I've looked at urbis (http://geoloc.irisnet.be/) which I
understand we can use, under extra it has an option to show
the municipalities.  But that would only be the one for level
8 and no information about the level 9 since they don't really
exist anymore.

I suggest you try to find the atlas der buurtwegen / des
chemins vicinaux, or the Popp card for that information.


PS: The URLs in your e-mail missed the "1" at the end, but it's in
the subject.

Kurt


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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] question on relation 2404021

[marc bessieres]

2013/11/3 André Pirard 

>  On 2013-11-03 01:00, André Pirard wrote :
>
> On 2013-11-02 23:04, marc bessieres wrote :
>
>  Hello,
>
>  After starting updating the wiki on quality assurance tools. I spent some
> time correcting the issues in Brussels.
>  Now I start finding issues I don't have enough knowledge to fix alone.
>  I assume it is better to send a mail per issue, so I start here with:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/240402
>
>  There is a FIXME in it before its boundaries are not complete.
>
>  For me it looks a lot like:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/58274
>
>  which has a complete boundary.
>  But one is Bruxelles, and the other is Ville de Bruxelles.
>
>  I must admit I don't understand the differences.
>
>  My idea would be to merge the extra data of  the former into the latter.
> And remove the former.
>  But as they are each in the relation of the other I may miss something
> or someone would have done the merge already, so here I am asking for a
> piece of advice.
>
>  What should be done with:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/240402
>
>  Thank you in advance,
>  Marc
>
>
> You should certainly not delete anything before you have fully understood
> the very complicated administrative structures of our country ;-)  You may
> notice that we have two Belgiums.
> Notice that those boundaries are administrative level 8 and level 9,
> certainly not the same thing and that doing as you say is destroying.
> I have mapped thousands of kilometers of boundaries in Belgium and I might
> have a closer look at that if you want, but not just right now.  Boundaries
> are complicated things.
>
> Cheers,
>
>   André.
>
>
> * Ville/Stad* de Bruxelles is in fact a *Commune/Gemeente* made of 4
> anciennes communes/deelgemeenten Brussels, La(e)ken, Neder-Over-Heembeek
> and Haren.
> What you see incomplete is the first one, but the other ones are
> incomplete too.
> The boundaries between them are missing. They must be added with the right
> name and the four boundaries must be closed over them. My only problem is
> finding the missing pieces if I do that, but I know where to look for them.
>
> Cheers,
>
>   André.
>
Thank you André for your explanations, I saw the administrative level
difference, but I didn't know how to interpret them. Now I do :)
If you could find the missing boundaries it'd be perfect! Or tell us where
to look for them, may be me or someone else in the community can help there.

Cheers,
Marc
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] question on relation 2404021

[André Pirard]

On 2013-11-03 01:00, André Pirard wrote :
> On 2013-11-02 23:04, marc bessieres wrote :
>> Hello,
>>
>> After starting updating the wiki on quality assurance tools. I spent
>> some time correcting the issues in Brussels.
>> Now I start finding issues I don't have enough knowledge to fix alone.
>> I assume it is better to send a mail per issue, so I start here with:
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/240402
>>
>> There is a FIXME in it before its boundaries are not complete.
>>
>> For me it looks a lot like:
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/58274
>>
>> which has a complete boundary.
>> But one is Bruxelles, and the other is Ville de Bruxelles.
>>
>> I must admit I don't understand the differences.
>>
>> My idea would be to merge the extra data of  the former into the
>> latter. And remove the former.
>> But as they are each in the relation of the other I may miss
>> something or someone would have done the merge already, so here I am
>> asking for a piece of advice.
>>
>> What should be done with:
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/240402
>>
>> Thank you in advance,
>> Marc
>>
>
> You should certainly not delete anything before you have fully
> understood the very complicated administrative structures of our
> country ;-)  You may notice that we have two Belgiums.
> Notice that those boundaries are administrative level 8 and level 9,
> certainly not the same thing and that doing as you say is destroying.
> I have mapped thousands of kilometers of boundaries in Belgium and I
> might have a closer look at that if you want, but not just right now. 
> Boundaries are complicated things.
>
> Cheers,
>
> André.
>
>
*
Ville/Stad* de Bruxelles is in fact a *Commune/Gemeente* made of 4
anciennes communes/deelgemeenten Brussels, La(e)ken, Neder-Over-Heembeek
and Haren.
What you see incomplete is the first one, but the other ones are
incomplete too.
The boundaries between them are missing. They must be added with the
right name and the four boundaries must be closed over them. My only
problem is finding the missing pieces if I do that, but I know where to
look for them.

Cheers,

André.


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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] question on relation 2404021

[André Pirard]

On 2013-11-02 23:04, marc bessieres wrote :
> Hello,
>
> After starting updating the wiki on quality assurance tools. I spent
> some time correcting the issues in Brussels.
> Now I start finding issues I don't have enough knowledge to fix alone.
> I assume it is better to send a mail per issue, so I start here with:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/240402
>
> There is a FIXME in it before its boundaries are not complete.
>
> For me it looks a lot like:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/58274
>
> which has a complete boundary.
> But one is Bruxelles, and the other is Ville de Bruxelles.
>
> I must admit I don't understand the differences.
>
> My idea would be to merge the extra data of  the former into the
> latter. And remove the former.
> But as they are each in the relation of the other I may miss something
> or someone would have done the merge already, so here I am asking for
> a piece of advice.
>
> What should be done with:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/240402
>
> Thank you in advance,
> Marc
>

You should certainly not delete anything before you have fully
understood the very complicated administrative structures of our country
;-)  You may notice that we have two Belgiums.
Notice that those boundaries are administrative level 8 and level 9,
certainly not the same thing and that doing as you say is destroying.
I have mapped thousands of kilometers of boundaries in Belgium and I
might have a closer look at that if you want, but not just right now. 
Boundaries are complicated things.

Cheers,

André.







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