[talk-ph] Provincial relations ( no not your far away relatives :-) )

[Ian Haylock]

Hi,

Just finished creating relations for all the provinces.

To answer Mannings email.

Well done you found one of my deliberate mistakes :-)

Actually I have no real idea which islands belong to which provinces. Feel free 
to move them from one relation to another.

Sulu, and Palawan Provinces probably have some errors, as there are just so 
many islands.

Some islands are also missing from the relations, those that I missed, which 
shouldn't be many, and those that are just a single node. feel free to add them.

Also converted the admin areas in Mindano to relations. This is Seav's area I 
think. So worth checking they're correct.

Also fixed a lot of broken boundaries in Manila, still some to go yet though.

Added the municipalities for Cavite just so I could add the barangay that I 
live in, so that searching for my street would work. After 4 1/2 years I 
discover I live in Mambog, not Molino. Still at least the mail still arrives :-)

Does anyone know of a source of municipalities that we could use ? Any 
reasonable maps would do.

Cheers, Ian

P.S. why did I have to sign up to this talk list again ?

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

Re: [talk-ph] Provincial relations ( no not your far away relatives :-) )

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

Hi Ian,

Well, I've been monitoring your edits and have fixed most of the
errors though not the omissions. :-)

Some notable errors that I fixed:
1. Batanes is not part of Cagayan. I've removed Batanes from the
Cagayan relation but I didn't create the Batanes relation.
2. Siquijor is not part of Cebu. I've removed Siquijor from the Cebu
relation and marked the coastline of Siquijor as its own boundary
since there are no other visible islands of Siquijor (I think) such
that a relation is needed.
3. Mapun (Cagayan de Tawi-Tawi) is not part of Palawan. I've removed
the municipality's islands from the Palawan relation. They (and the
Turtle Islands) have yet to be included in the Tawi-Tawi relation.
4. When you moved the QC-Rizal boundary to Marikina River (which I'm
not sure is really correct), you created a duplicate river centerline.
I've fixed that, though research is needed to correctly determine if
the boundary is indeed on the Marikina River.
5. Davao City is not part of Davao del Sur (though they're often
grouped together).
6. Zamboanga City is not part of Zamboanga Sibugay.

One major error that is yet to be fixed is that Dinagat Islands is no
longer a province since the law that created it was struck down by the
Supreme Court as unconstitutional. So the islands revert back to
Surigao del Norte.

Regarding #5 and #6 above, I think that highly-urbanized cities (like
Baguio) and independent cities (like Cotabato) should be considered
outside the province admin boundary relations since these cities are
completely independent of any province administratively. But until we
have accurate city/municipal boundaries, I guess the current situation
can exist. Davao City and Zamboanga City (aside from Metro Manila
cities) are the current exceptions since they already have available
boundaries.

As for the Cavite boundaries, they're very crude especially in the
southwestern half, but I guess they can be improved in the future.

BTW, it seems that some of your admin relation edits is just
rearrangement of the ways so that they're in order? While this is
nice, it's not necessary since all the renderers that I know of can
handle out-of-order ways.

On your PS: I think you're also signed up using another address:
haylockid at gmail.com?

Eugene


On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Ian Haylock  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just finished creating relations for all the provinces.
>
> To answer Mannings email.
>
> Well done you found one of my deliberate mistakes :-)
>
> Actually I have no real idea which islands belong to which provinces. Feel 
> free to move them from one relation to another.
>
> Sulu, and Palawan Provinces probably have some errors, as there are just so 
> many islands.
>
> Some islands are also missing from the relations, those that I missed, which 
> shouldn't be many, and those that are just a single node. feel free to add 
> them.
>
> Also converted the admin areas in Mindano to relations. This is Seav's area I 
> think. So worth checking they're correct.
>
> Also fixed a lot of broken boundaries in Manila, still some to go yet though.
>
> Added the municipalities for Cavite just so I could add the barangay that I 
> live in, so that searching for my street would work. After 4 1/2 years I 
> discover I live in Mambog, not Molino. Still at least the mail still arrives 
> :-)
>
> Does anyone know of a source of municipalities that we could use ? Any 
> reasonable maps would do.
>
> Cheers, Ian
>
> P.S. why did I have to sign up to this talk list again ?
>

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

Re: [talk-ph] Provincial relations ( no not your far away relatives :-) )

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

A follow-up.

Where did you get the Cagayan boundaries? The relation you added for
Claveria  and
Santa Praxedes 
are wrong since the town center of Claveria
 has been included within Santa
Praxedes' boundary relation.


On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar  wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> Well, I've been monitoring your edits and have fixed most of the
> errors though not the omissions. :-)
>
> Some notable errors that I fixed:
> 1. Batanes is not part of Cagayan. I've removed Batanes from the
> Cagayan relation but I didn't create the Batanes relation.
> 2. Siquijor is not part of Cebu. I've removed Siquijor from the Cebu
> relation and marked the coastline of Siquijor as its own boundary
> since there are no other visible islands of Siquijor (I think) such
> that a relation is needed.
> 3. Mapun (Cagayan de Tawi-Tawi) is not part of Palawan. I've removed
> the municipality's islands from the Palawan relation. They (and the
> Turtle Islands) have yet to be included in the Tawi-Tawi relation.
> 4. When you moved the QC-Rizal boundary to Marikina River (which I'm
> not sure is really correct), you created a duplicate river centerline.
> I've fixed that, though research is needed to correctly determine if
> the boundary is indeed on the Marikina River.
> 5. Davao City is not part of Davao del Sur (though they're often
> grouped together).
> 6. Zamboanga City is not part of Zamboanga Sibugay.
>
> One major error that is yet to be fixed is that Dinagat Islands is no
> longer a province since the law that created it was struck down by the
> Supreme Court as unconstitutional. So the islands revert back to
> Surigao del Norte.
>
> Regarding #5 and #6 above, I think that highly-urbanized cities (like
> Baguio) and independent cities (like Cotabato) should be considered
> outside the province admin boundary relations since these cities are
> completely independent of any province administratively. But until we
> have accurate city/municipal boundaries, I guess the current situation
> can exist. Davao City and Zamboanga City (aside from Metro Manila
> cities) are the current exceptions since they already have available
> boundaries.
>
> As for the Cavite boundaries, they're very crude especially in the
> southwestern half, but I guess they can be improved in the future.
>
> BTW, it seems that some of your admin relation edits is just
> rearrangement of the ways so that they're in order? While this is
> nice, it's not necessary since all the renderers that I know of can
> handle out-of-order ways.
>
> On your PS: I think you're also signed up using another address:
> haylockid at gmail.com?
>
> Eugene
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Ian Haylock  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Just finished creating relations for all the provinces.
>>
>> To answer Mannings email.
>>
>> Well done you found one of my deliberate mistakes :-)
>>
>> Actually I have no real idea which islands belong to which provinces. Feel 
>> free to move them from one relation to another.
>>
>> Sulu, and Palawan Provinces probably have some errors, as there are just so 
>> many islands.
>>
>> Some islands are also missing from the relations, those that I missed, which 
>> shouldn't be many, and those that are just a single node. feel free to add 
>> them.
>>
>> Also converted the admin areas in Mindano to relations. This is Seav's area 
>> I think. So worth checking they're correct.
>>
>> Also fixed a lot of broken boundaries in Manila, still some to go yet though.
>>
>> Added the municipalities for Cavite just so I could add the barangay that I 
>> live in, so that searching for my street would work. After 4 1/2 years I 
>> discover I live in Mambog, not Molino. Still at least the mail still arrives 
>> :-)
>>
>> Does anyone know of a source of municipalities that we could use ? Any 
>> reasonable maps would do.
>>
>> Cheers, Ian
>>
>> P.S. why did I have to sign up to this talk list again ?
>>
>



-- 
http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com

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

Re: [talk-ph] Provincial relations ( no not your far away relatives :-) )

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

Most of the maps in Wikipedia were modeled after the boundaries
available in mapcentral.ph if the provincial websites didn't have them
available. While creating these mapcentral derived maps in Wikipedia
seems OK under the US copyright law (since only the uncopyrightable
'facts' were copied), they are unfortunately not OK under OSM's strict
interpretation. That's why I don't think we should base everything off
Wikipedia maps or mapcentral.

I know for a fact that the boundaries in mapcentral are not 100% accurate.

Unfortunately, that means that we should actually engage with the
local government units in order to get the actual boundaries. This was
done for San Carlos City, Negros Occidental, for example.


On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Ian Haylock  wrote:
>> A follow-up.
>>
>> Where did you get the Cagayan boundaries? The relation you
>> added for
>> Claveria 
>> and
>> Santa Praxedes 
>> are wrong since the town center of Claveria
>>  has been included
>> within Santa
>> Praxedes' boundary relation.
>>
>>
> That's why I gave up. I don't have the info to get the municipal boundaries 
> correct. If you like you can try using the maps in wikipedia. :-)
>
> You could just delete the incorrect boundaries if you like.
>
> Though maybe one day some one local will join and fix them
>
> Cheers, Ian
>



-- 
http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com

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

Re: [talk-ph] Provincial relations ( no not your far away relatives :-) )

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

Hi Ian,

On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Ian Haylock  wrote:
>> 4. When you moved the QC-Rizal boundary to Marikina River
>> (which I'm
>> not sure is really correct)
>
> Well it seemed more logical, as lots of the boundaries seem to follow rivers 
> and streams.

While it seems logical, it's not always the case. Many boundaries
don't follow any natural feature. Quezon City's map

suggests that the boundary in that area is a straight line and not the
Marikina River. This map of neighboring San Mateo
,http://www.batangsanmateo.com/map/index.htm> also suggests that the
boundary is a straight line.

>> I've fixed that, though research is needed to correctly determine if the 
>> boundary is indeed on the Marikina River.
>
> Where can one find such info, without visiting the local town hall ?

Sometimes the local government unit's website have maps or a
geographical description where you can get the info to draw the
boundaries. There's also gadm.org, but the boundaries there for the
Philippines are pretty bad (and are licensed non-commercial so we
couldn't use them anyway).

>> 5. Davao City is not part of Davao del Sur (though they're
>> often
>> grouped together).
>
>> 6. Zamboanga City is not part of Zamboanga Sibugay.
>>
>
> Feel free to create a boundary around the cities to separate them. Someone 
> already did this with Tagatay City.
>
>> Regarding #5 and #6 above, I think that highly-urbanized
>> cities (like
>> Baguio) and independent cities (like Cotabato) should be
>> considered
>> outside the province admin boundary relations since these
>> cities are
>> completely independent of any province administratively.
>> But until we
>> have accurate city/municipal boundaries, I guess the
>> current situation can exist.
>
> Hey, the boundary around Tagatay City is just a square box, not exactly what 
> I'd call accurate, but hey it's a wiki, someone can improve it later.

Tagaytay's boundaries is in reality pretty rectangular and what's in
OSM is probably accurate to within a kilometer. :-) But Tagaytay is
neither highly urbanized nor independent so they're properly within
Cavite's boundaries.

>> BTW, it seems that some of your admin relation edits is
>> just
>> rearrangement of the ways so that they're in order? While
>> this is
>> nice, it's not necessary since all the renderers that I
>> know of can
>> handle out-of-order ways.
>
> Ah, but as I'm not a computer I can't tell if the boundary is complete or 
> broken unless they are arranged in order. So once this is done, I thought I 
> might as well upload the boundary again. It also gives me a record as to 
> which boundaries I've already edited, as it gets quite confusing in Manila.

We could use Keep Right to monitor incomplete and broken boundaries
since it can detect them.

Eugene

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

Re: [talk-ph] Provincial relations ( no not your far away relatives :-) )

[maning sambale]

Unless we have very good reference, using rivers as boundaries is not
always a good choice.  The post-ondoy imagery from Bing shows that a
lot of river tributaries have changed already:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/maning/diary/13191

On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 11:35 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar  wrote:
>>> 4. When you moved the QC-Rizal boundary to Marikina River
>>> (which I'm
>>> not sure is really correct)
>>
>> Well it seemed more logical, as lots of the boundaries seem to follow rivers 
>> and streams.
>
> While it seems logical, it's not always the case. Many boundaries
> don't follow any natural feature. Quezon City's map
> 
> suggests that the boundary in that area is a straight line and not the
> Marikina River. This map of neighboring San Mateo
> ,http://www.batangsanmateo.com/map/index.htm> also suggests that the
> boundary is a straight line.



-- 
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