Added a your proposal in the mapping conventions page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Philippines/Mapping_conventions#Administrative_boundaries
I propose we replace the old scheme, once other people have commented/raised their reactions. On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar <sea...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi maning, > > Actually, I mentioned in my e-mail that I have specifically excluded > congressional districts[1] from the discussion since these do not specify > administrative boundaries. Aside from the pork barrel, the representatives > don't *administer* their territories. I think these should be tagged as > boundary=legislative/congressional and not as boundary=administrative.[2] > > I've done a bit more research since my initial e-mail and here is my > proposed values for admin_level: > > 2 - National border > 3 - Regions > 4 - Provinces > 5 - Sangguniang Panlalawigan districts (if any) > 6 - Cities/Municipalities > 7 - Sangguniang Panlungsod/Bayan districts (if any) > 8 - Other administrative districts[3] (if any) > 9 - Zones (if any) > 10 - Barangays > 12 - Sitios/Puroks (if any, but only if boundaries are defined) > > The Sangguniang Lalawigan/Lungsod/Bayan districts are mentioned in Republic > Act No. 7887[4]. These districts basically apportion the members of the > LGU's Sanggunian. Since the Sanggunian is an administrative entity (it's the > one that creates the local laws or ordinances), then it's proper that their > districts also be given admin_levels. > > These proposed values have the proviso that admin_level=3 is *not* > automatically an admin_level=4|5 due to the weird nature of Isabela City and > the ARMM. (But, as long as all boundaries are grouped into relations, then > there should be no problem with interpretations.) > > > Eugene / seav > > ------------- > [1] The proper legal term is "legislative district". > > [2] We can also have boundary=judicial (for the jurisdictions of the > Regional and Metropolitan trial courts) and boundary=police (like Manila's > Western Police District). Also, Catholic archdioceses and dioceses, anyone > (boundary=catholic)? :-) > > [3] Examples of other non-Sanggunian districts: > > A. Manila has 6 Sangguniang districts (I to VI) co-terminous with the > legislative districts and these are further subdivided into 17 geographical > districts: Tondo 1, Tondo 2, Sta. Cruz, Sampaloc, Sta. Mesa, Quiapo, > Binondo, San Miguel, San Nicolas, Port Area, Intramuros, Paco, Pandacan, > Ermita, Malate, Sta. Ana, and San Andres. These districts are further > subdivided into 100 zones. (Tondo 1 and Tondo 2 used to be one district, > while San Andres used to be part of Sta. Ana and Sta. Mesa used to be part > of Sampaloc.) > > B. Iloilo City has 6 districts: Arevalo, City Proper, Jaro, La Paz, > Mandurriao, and Molo. (Iloilo City has only 1 legislative district.) > > C. Davao City has 3 Sangguniang districts (1 to 3) co-terminous with the > legislative districts and these are further subdivided into 11 > administrative districts: Poblacion, Talomo, Agdao, Buhangin, Bunawan, > Paquibato, Baguio, Calinan, Marilog, Toril, and Tugbok. > > D. Pasay City has 7 districts (1 to 7) subdivided into 20 zones. (Pasay City > has only 1 legislative district.) > > N.B. Quezon City "districts" like Cubao, Diliman, La Loma, San Francisco del > Monte, Projects 2,3,4,5,6,7,8, etc. DO NOT have legally defined borders so > they won't have a place in the admin_level scheme. > > [4] http://www.chanrobles.com/republicacts/republicactno7887.html > > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 2:08 PM, maning sambale <emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Eugene and all, >> >> Are you proposing this scheme for admin_levels? >> >> (first row is Eugene's proposal as I understand it) >> 2 --> 2 - National Border (this is a worldwide convention, so there will >> be no >> 3 --> 4 - Regions >> 4 --> 6 - Provinces >> 5 --> Districts? >> 6 --> 8 - Cities and municipalities >> 8 --> 9 - Barangays and Districts of Manila >> 10 --> Zones >> 12 --> all sitios/puroks can just simply be place=*) >> >> The congressional district is very problematic in terms of level in >> the hierarchy. Some congressional districts covers several >> municipalities while others in my case, Marikina covers only >> barangays. >> >> I think the most critical that we agreed on is the level for barangay >> and cities/municipalities. The other levels can be aggregated to the >> above basic unit. >> >> What do others think? >> >> >> On 4/11/09, Eugene Alvin Villar <sea...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Hi >> > >> > Right now, in the mapping conventions page ( >> > >> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Philippines/Mapping_conventions) >> > we have the following: >> > >> > 2 - National Border (this is a worldwide convention, so there will be no >> > changing of this value's meaning) >> > 4 - Regions >> > 6 - Provinces >> > 8 - Cities and municipalities >> > 9 - Barangays and Districts of Manila >> > >> > I'd like to re-open the discussion on a few points. It's better we put >> > these >> > things down pat before adding more barangay borders. >> > >> > *I. Boundaries of Regions* >> > >> > Is it useful to *explicitly* indicate the boundaries for regions? If >> > not, >> > then we can bump up the admin_level for provinces to 4. If anyone really >> > wants the regional boundaries, then only a small amount of >> > post-processing >> > is needed given the provincial boundaries (well, except for that weird >> > business with Isabela City and Cotabato City). As an alternative, since >> > the >> > sort-of convention in OSM is to use the even numbers primarily and >> > reserve >> > the odd numbers for special cases, then maybe we can have regions as >> > admin_level=3 and provinces as admin_level=4. Caveat: while regions are >> > generally just groupings of local government units, ARMM *does* have a >> > regional government. (And Metro Manila, the region, is somewhat a >> > federation >> > under the MMDA.) >> > >> > Here's how we can view regions: normal regions are simply groupings of >> > provinces subject to the whim of the President (so that each executive >> > department can have regional offices for better rendering and >> > localization >> > of services). ARMM is a *special* unique region having its own >> > autonomous >> > government and each city and municipality AFAIK can independently choose >> > to >> > be part of ARMM, not on a per province basis. This is why Isabela City >> > is >> > under Basilan, but outside ARMM, even though the rest of Basilan is in >> > ARMM. >> > >> > *II. Hierarchy of Administrative Units* >> > >> > Here is the *administrative* (i.e., congressional/judicial/police/etc. >> > districts are not included) hierarchy in the Philippines: >> > >> > - Regions* (no government except for ARMM, and quasi-government for >> > Metro >> > Manila) >> > - Provinces (has a government) >> > - Cities / municipalities (has a government) >> > - Districts** (no executive government; e.g., Malate in Manila and Jaro >> > in >> > Iloilo City, but not Cubao, a vaguely-defined district, in Quezon City) >> > - Zones (no government; cities and municipalities with zones include >> > Manila, >> > Pasay, Caloocan; zones are just defined groupings of barangays for >> > administrative convenience) >> > - Barangays (has a government) >> > - Sitios / puroks (no government; boundaries are not always defined so >> > maybe >> > all sitios/puroks can just simply be place=*) >> > >> > ** Some districts might need to be delineated. For example, Quezon City >> > is >> > divided into 4 districts (numbered 1-4) and while these correspond >> > 1-is-to-1 >> > with the congressional districts of Quezon City and would not normally >> > fall >> > under boundary=administrative (maybe, >> > boundary=legislative/congressional?), >> > each district has its own set of city councilors (which I think means >> > that >> > each district can have its own set of ordinances, though I'm not sure >> > about >> > the details). This makes these districts "administrative" in their own >> > right >> > and might merit their own boundary=administrative tagging. >> > >> > Which of these do we include and at what values of admin_level? >> > >> > *III. Highly-urbanized Cities and Independent Component Cities* >> > >> > How do we handle the case of Highly-urbanized Cities and Independent >> > Component Cities? boundary=administrative implies an administration >> > delineation of sorts (e.g., the area delineated by the boundaries of >> > Rizal >> > province is under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Government of >> > Rizal). >> > HUCs and ICCs are administratively independent of their provinces (save >> > from >> > unusual exceptions depending on the City Charter, like Mandaue City >> > residents being able to vote for Cebu Provincial positions despite being >> > an >> > HUC). For example, Cebu City is a HUC and so the Cebu Provincial >> > Government >> > has no legal say over the territory of Cebu CIty (except for the limited >> > case of paying costs to Cebu City for "hosting" the Cebu Provincial >> > Capitol). (This has resulted in a lot of legal battle between Cebu City >> > and >> > Cebu Province, like the dispute on who has jurisdiction over Osmena >> > Circle >> > in Cebu City.) >> > >> > (See this Wikipedia article section regarding independent cities: >> > >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cities_of_the_Philippines#Independent_cities ) >> > >> > >> > Eugene / seav >> > >> > -- >> > http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com >> > >> >> >> -- >> cheers, >> maning >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden >> wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ >> blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> talk-ph mailing list >> talk-ph@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph > > > > -- > http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com > -- cheers, maning ------------------------------------------------------ "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ ------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph