Re: [talk-ph] Revisiting the admin_level values for boundary=administrative
what are the tags for sitio/purok and gated community (those unmapped areas)? we don't have defined boundaries of most of them in our lists yet; but they need to be tagged particularly those in the rural areas - for searching purposes (of their general location to aid future mappers) On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 9:53 AM, maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.comwrote: Made seav's proposal official ;) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Philippines/Mapping_conventions#Administrative_boundaries Please expand the wiki especially on proper tagging of boundaries (relations) cheers, maning On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:18 PM, maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com wrote: 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
Re: [talk-ph] Revisiting the admin_level values for boundary=administrative
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 10:53 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.comwrote: Looking at the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place Maybe place=hamlet (for rural puroks?) or place=suburb (for urban puroks?)? Then additionally tag with place:ph=purok|sitio. I'm not just sure, but I was thinking the same after reading earlier : http://www.answers.com/topic/hamlet Hamlet seems to be the nearest equivalent of a sitio. Maybe by adopting this tag for use on purok/sitio, we can have our own local definition of hamlet for osm-ph use, like in other countries' local definitions. Anyway, it's there in JOSM's preset tags, so maybe we don't have a choice after all (for using this sub-zone sub-village tag). Let's see how it goes. I just don't know if these will clutter the map by tagging every purok we can positively identify in the rural and urban areas. Unlike in some parts of the globe, they are usually located far apart. Urban puroks are only a couple of blocks away from each other (although there is less need for tagging these (urban puroks) because streetnames are already available for searching, without the need to know the purok names, unlike in the province). As for gated communities, I usually just draw a landuse=residential around the subdivision. For example, see Tierra Nueva Village in Alabang: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/23379596 Eugene / seav ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] Revisiting the admin_level values for boundary=administrative
Made seav's proposal official ;) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Philippines/Mapping_conventions#Administrative_boundaries Please expand the wiki especially on proper tagging of boundaries (relations) cheers, maning On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:18 PM, maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com wrote: 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
Re: [talk-ph] Revisiting the admin_level values for boundary=administrative
I guess the group agree to most of seav's proposal on tagging admin_level (unless there are reservations please raise it here). I have another question though, how do we then tag municipal waters? As per RA 8550: http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1998/ra_8550_1998.html 58. Municipal waters - include not only streams, lakes, inland bodies of water and tidal waters within the municipality ... but also marine waters included between two (2. lines drawn perpendicular to the general coastline from points where the boundary lines of the municipality touch the sea at low tide and a third line parallel with the general coastline including offshore islands and fifteen (15. kilometers from such coastline. Where two (2. municipalities are so situated on opposite shores that there is less than thirty (30. kilometers of marine waters between them, the third line shall be equally distant from opposite shore of the respective municipalities. I can make a GIS operation to do this if we can add the boundaries of coastal municipalities in OSM. But AFAIK, what we have on the ground politically is not the same as what the law above defines. Any ideas? Of course we can leave that issue for the moment and proceed to adding the municipal boundaries. On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 6:35 PM, ian_lopez_1...@yahoo.com wrote: I am in favor of the proposed changes, which is more refined than the current scheme that is now being implemented. Regarding some places mentioned by Eugene, Projects 2-8 are either administered by a similarly named barangay (Projects 4, 6, 7 8), or by barangays with different names. San Francisco del Monte is now (probably) composed of Barangay Del Monte and nearby barangays. In tagging legislative/congressional districts, the tag should be boundary=political, per the previous comment that representatives do not administer their respctive legislative districts. --- On Mon, 5/4/09, maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com wrote: From: maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [talk-ph] Revisiting the admin_level values for boundary=administrative To: Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com Cc: OSM talk-ph@openstreetmap.org Date: Monday, May 4, 2009, 12:18 PM 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
Re: [talk-ph] Revisiting the admin_level values for boundary=administrative
I am in favor of the proposed changes, which is more refined than the current scheme that is now being implemented. Regarding some places mentioned by Eugene, Projects 2-8 are either administered by a similarly named barangay (Projects 4, 6, 7 8), or by barangays with different names. San Francisco del Monte is now (probably) composed of Barangay Del Monte and nearby barangays. In tagging legislative/congressional districts, the tag should be boundary=political, per the previous comment that representatives do not administer their respctive legislative districts. --- On Mon, 5/4/09, maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com wrote: From: maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [talk-ph] Revisiting the admin_level values for boundary=administrative To: Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com Cc: OSM talk-ph@openstreetmap.org Date: Monday, May 4, 2009, 12:18 PM 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 ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] Revisiting the admin_level values for boundary=administrative
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*
Re: [talk-ph] Revisiting the admin_level values for boundary=administrative
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
Re: [talk-ph] Revisiting the admin_level values for boundary=administrative
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.comwrote: 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
Re: [talk-ph] Revisiting the admin_level values for boundary=administrative
Hi maning, For your second question, well Ian and I are already converting and implementing the borders in Metro Manila as relations (though the admin_levels are still not finalized). For example, see this relation for Brgy. Urdaneta in Makati: http://openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/103686 Or this relation for Brgy. Ayala Alabang: http://openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/110365 Eugene / seav On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 8:16 PM, maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.comwrote: Sounds like a good proposal to me. Do we vote? :) Let's wait for the others to look into it before we start implementing. I'm not really sure what is the extent of coverage of existing admin boundary data that we need to edit to follow this convention. Next question would be, will it be a relation or just regular node/way? cheers, maning who wants to go home already but still working because he needs to finish statistical processing of gigabytes of satellite data to meet work deadline! On 4/30/09, 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 -- http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] Revisiting the admin_level values for boundary=administrative
Nice! I better start adding marikina boundaries then (well until we agree on the proposal) cheers, maning still at work! midway to finishing the image processing. For example, see this relation for Brgy. Urdaneta in Makati: http://openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/103686 Or this relation for Brgy. Ayala Alabang: http://openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/110365 Eugene / seav On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 8:16 PM, maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.comwrote: Sounds like a good proposal to me. Do we vote? :) Let's wait for the others to look into it before we start implementing. I'm not really sure what is the extent of coverage of existing admin boundary data that we need to edit to follow this convention. Next question would be, will it be a relation or just regular node/way? cheers, maning who wants to go home already but still working because he needs to finish statistical processing of gigabytes of satellite data to meet work deadline! On 4/30/09, 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 -- 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
