Re: [talk-ph] best practice for village admin_centre relations
Thanks for all the advise. I think I've fixed all of Markina's village/brgy admin_centres http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/agI On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Rally de Leon rall...@gmail.com wrote: Erwin, Confused: I thought all along that the subject about the admin-polygon-relation's center (whatever that means). :-) That normally, in the absence of a member 'admin_centre' node in the relation, the name-TEXT of that administrative polygon is rendered in its geometric center. BUT, assigning a node as the admin_centre of an administrative_relation, will for some reason render the TEXT value at the assigned 'location' of said node. Which in most cases happens to be the place_name. Isn't that the idea of Maning's question? h What's the difference if there's any? can you explain? (with example please - yung pang elementary) for the benefit of the likes of me who are too lazy to read the manual, hehe Rally On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Erwin Olario gov...@gmail.com wrote: Rally, Maning is asking about the administrative centres, and that would mean government authorities in charge of administration. They are not meant to represent the [geographic] center of the village which isn't something we normally map. As for place=village nodes, and like I wrote earlier, I put them in the commons (e.g. plaza, local park, etc.). Erwin Erwin Olario - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - » email: er...@ngnuity.net | gov...@gmail.com » mobile: (PHL): +63 908 817 2013 » OpenPGP key: 3A93D56B | 5D42 7CCB 8827 9046 1ACB 0B94 63A4 81CE 3A93 D56B On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Rally de Leon rall...@gmail.com wrote: Question: - What's the best practice for adding admin_centre nodes to the village boundary relation? Should it be the barangay hall (amenity=townhall) or the place=village node? For place nodes, a good practice IMHO is putting said node (eg. place=village) somewhere NEAR but NOT ON an object or group of objects which represents the center of the village, typically any of the following: -barangay hall -village plaza (eg. where there's a multipurpose hall or basketball court) -the center of traditional grid-street (the oldest populated area of the place) My interpretation of somewhere near is around 100-150 meters away; on a not-so-important space (eg. a vacant area or generic community) in the vicinity, where there are no other place nodes, or important landmarks like a park or institution. 1st Reason: The 'place node' is represented by a TEXT on the map. -a rendered TEXT always cover the lines and polygons under it. Thus, putting a place_node very close to another object (eg. important building), will essentially make that building disappear (information visibility is not optimized). Said buildings will only appear when you zoom-in on a digital map. But you cannot zoom-in on a paper map (2-D). So I thought, the best practice is to move it just enough not to cover important objects (part of the art). (until such time we have an algorithm to do that automatically) 2nd Reason: Putting a place node inside a polygon with a large footprint the size of a neighborhood, like an institutional_polygon or a park; will not just potentially cover the 'name' of institution or park, but add unintended confusion or misrepresentation of the polygon. eg. If you put a place_node of Ermita inside Rizal Park's valencia circle, a tourist who wants to go to the heart of Ermita, ends up in Luneta (which is technically Ermita) - but was not probably his/her intention 3rd Reason: There are some LGU's (municipal and barangays) which relocated (or isolated) their new townhalls away from the village or town centers. Putting a place_node on top or near an isolated townhall (away from populated center) is not always representative of the general location of the village or the town. (this is a dilemna for Mamasapano, where townhall is located near the boundary) --- I'm voting +1 for: place=village as admin_centre, provided it's located NEAR not ON the object (amenity=townhall) Cheer, Rally ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden https://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ http://twitter.com/maningsambale -- ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] best practice for village admin_centre relations
Rally, Maning is asking about the administrative centres, and that would mean government authorities in charge of administration. They are not meant to represent the [geographic] center of the village which isn't something we normally map. As for place=village nodes, and like I wrote earlier, I put them in the commons (e.g. plaza, local park, etc.). Erwin *Erwin Olario* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - » email: erwin@ er...@ngnuity.net*n**gnu**IT**y**.**net* http://ngnuity.net/ | gov...@gmail.com » mobile: (PHL): +63 908 817 2013 » OpenPGP key: 3A93D56B | 5D42 7CCB 8827 9046 1ACB 0B94 63A4 81CE 3A93 D56B On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Rally de Leon rall...@gmail.com wrote: Question: - What's the best practice for adding admin_centre nodes to the village boundary relation? Should it be the barangay hall (amenity=townhall) or the place=village node? For place nodes, a good practice IMHO is putting said node (eg. place=village) somewhere NEAR but NOT ON an object or group of objects which represents the center of the village, typically any of the following: -barangay hall -village plaza (eg. where there's a multipurpose hall or basketball court) -the center of traditional grid-street (the oldest populated area of the place) My interpretation of somewhere near is around 100-150 meters away; on a not-so-important space (eg. a vacant area or generic community) in the vicinity, where there are no other place nodes, or important landmarks like a park or institution. 1st Reason: The 'place node' is represented by a TEXT on the map. -a rendered TEXT always cover the lines and polygons under it. Thus, putting a place_node very close to another object (eg. important building), will essentially make that building disappear (information visibility is not optimized). Said buildings will only appear when you zoom-in on a digital map. But you cannot zoom-in on a paper map (2-D). So I thought, the best practice is to move it just enough not to cover important objects (part of the art). (until such time we have an algorithm to do that automatically) 2nd Reason: Putting a place node inside a polygon with a large footprint the size of a neighborhood, like an institutional_polygon or a park; will not just potentially cover the 'name' of institution or park, but add unintended confusion or misrepresentation of the polygon. eg. If you put a place_node of Ermita inside Rizal Park's valencia circle, a tourist who wants to go to the heart of Ermita, ends up in Luneta (which is technically Ermita) - but was not probably his/her intention 3rd Reason: There are some LGU's (municipal and barangays) which relocated (or isolated) their new townhalls away from the village or town centers. Putting a place_node on top or near an isolated townhall (away from populated center) is not always representative of the general location of the village or the town. (this is a dilemna for Mamasapano, where townhall is located near the boundary) --- I'm voting +1 for: place=village as admin_centre, provided it's located NEAR not ON the object (amenity=townhall) Cheer, Rally ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] best practice for village admin_centre relations
Erwin, Confused: I thought all along that the subject about the admin-polygon-relation's center (whatever that means). :-) That normally, in the absence of a member 'admin_centre' node in the relation, the name-TEXT of that administrative polygon is rendered in its geometric center. BUT, assigning a node as the admin_centre of an administrative_relation, will for some reason render the TEXT value at the assigned 'location' of said node. Which in most cases happens to be the place_name. Isn't that the idea of Maning's question? h What's the difference if there's any? can you explain? (with example please - yung pang elementary) for the benefit of the likes of me who are too lazy to read the manual, hehe Rally On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Erwin Olario gov...@gmail.com wrote: Rally, Maning is asking about the administrative centres, and that would mean government authorities in charge of administration. They are not meant to represent the [geographic] center of the village which isn't something we normally map. As for place=village nodes, and like I wrote earlier, I put them in the commons (e.g. plaza, local park, etc.). Erwin *Erwin Olario* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - » email: erwin@ er...@ngnuity.net*n**gnu**IT**y**.**net* http://ngnuity.net/ | gov...@gmail.com » mobile: (PHL): +63 908 817 2013 » OpenPGP key: 3A93D56B | 5D42 7CCB 8827 9046 1ACB 0B94 63A4 81CE 3A93 D56B On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Rally de Leon rall...@gmail.com wrote: Question: - What's the best practice for adding admin_centre nodes to the village boundary relation? Should it be the barangay hall (amenity=townhall) or the place=village node? For place nodes, a good practice IMHO is putting said node (eg. place=village) somewhere NEAR but NOT ON an object or group of objects which represents the center of the village, typically any of the following: -barangay hall -village plaza (eg. where there's a multipurpose hall or basketball court) -the center of traditional grid-street (the oldest populated area of the place) My interpretation of somewhere near is around 100-150 meters away; on a not-so-important space (eg. a vacant area or generic community) in the vicinity, where there are no other place nodes, or important landmarks like a park or institution. 1st Reason: The 'place node' is represented by a TEXT on the map. -a rendered TEXT always cover the lines and polygons under it. Thus, putting a place_node very close to another object (eg. important building), will essentially make that building disappear (information visibility is not optimized). Said buildings will only appear when you zoom-in on a digital map. But you cannot zoom-in on a paper map (2-D). So I thought, the best practice is to move it just enough not to cover important objects (part of the art). (until such time we have an algorithm to do that automatically) 2nd Reason: Putting a place node inside a polygon with a large footprint the size of a neighborhood, like an institutional_polygon or a park; will not just potentially cover the 'name' of institution or park, but add unintended confusion or misrepresentation of the polygon. eg. If you put a place_node of Ermita inside Rizal Park's valencia circle, a tourist who wants to go to the heart of Ermita, ends up in Luneta (which is technically Ermita) - but was not probably his/her intention 3rd Reason: There are some LGU's (municipal and barangays) which relocated (or isolated) their new townhalls away from the village or town centers. Putting a place_node on top or near an isolated townhall (away from populated center) is not always representative of the general location of the village or the town. (this is a dilemna for Mamasapano, where townhall is located near the boundary) --- I'm voting +1 for: place=village as admin_centre, provided it's located NEAR not ON the object (amenity=townhall) Cheer, Rally ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] best practice for village admin_centre relations
Question: - What's the best practice for adding admin_centre nodes to the village boundary relation? Should it be the barangay hall (amenity=townhall) or the place=village node? For place nodes, a good practice IMHO is putting said node (eg. place=village) somewhere NEAR but NOT ON an object or group of objects which represents the center of the village, typically any of the following: -barangay hall -village plaza (eg. where there's a multipurpose hall or basketball court) -the center of traditional grid-street (the oldest populated area of the place) My interpretation of somewhere near is around 100-150 meters away; on a not-so-important space (eg. a vacant area or generic community) in the vicinity, where there are no other place nodes, or important landmarks like a park or institution. 1st Reason: The 'place node' is represented by a TEXT on the map. -a rendered TEXT always cover the lines and polygons under it. Thus, putting a place_node very close to another object (eg. important building), will essentially make that building disappear (information visibility is not optimized). Said buildings will only appear when you zoom-in on a digital map. But you cannot zoom-in on a paper map (2-D). So I thought, the best practice is to move it just enough not to cover important objects (part of the art). (until such time we have an algorithm to do that automatically) 2nd Reason: Putting a place node inside a polygon with a large footprint the size of a neighborhood, like an institutional_polygon or a park; will not just potentially cover the 'name' of institution or park, but add unintended confusion or misrepresentation of the polygon. eg. If you put a place_node of Ermita inside Rizal Park's valencia circle, a tourist who wants to go to the heart of Ermita, ends up in Luneta (which is technically Ermita) - but was not probably his/her intention 3rd Reason: There are some LGU's (municipal and barangays) which relocated (or isolated) their new townhalls away from the village or town centers. Putting a place_node on top or near an isolated townhall (away from populated center) is not always representative of the general location of the village or the town. (this is a dilemna for Mamasapano, where townhall is located near the boundary) --- I'm voting +1 for: place=village as admin_centre, provided it's located NEAR not ON the object (amenity=townhall) Cheer, Rally ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
[talk-ph] best practice for village admin_centre relations
Hi, Normally, I mark the location for place=village to where the barangay hall is located. What's the best practice for adding admin_centre nodes to the village boundary relation? Should it be the barangay hall (amenity=townhall) or the place=village node? -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden https://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ http://twitter.com/maningsambale -- ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
