Re: [talk-ph] editing admin boundaries of Marikina
Hi maning, What we and Ian do is to decompose the borders as a network of ways. Each boundary way should only be a dividing line between any two barangays (if known) and left unnamed and tagged with the lowest (numeric) possible admin_level. Then the borders surrounding a barangay are collected into a relation as are the ways surrounding a municipality, city, province, etc. Example: City A is composed of barangays W, X, Y and Z. ,,, |2 |4 | |1 W|3 | || X 5| ||| | 8 7|6 | ||| |9 Y|| ||11 Z 12| | 10| 13 | ''' Hopefully the ASCII art looks ok. In this example, we have a total of 13 ways all tagged with boundary=administrative. In addition, ways 1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 13, 10, and 9 are tagged with admin_level=6 (city) while the rest with admin_level=10 (barangay). Then create relations for each of the barangays: Barangay W: type=boundary boundary=administrative admin_level=10 name=W members: 1,2,3,8 (all as blank) and so on. Then finally, City A is another relation: type=boundary boundary=administrative admin_level=6 name=A members: 1,2,4,5,12,13,10,9 (all as blank) Hopefully this explains everything. Eugene / seav On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 6:36 PM, maning sambale wrote: > Hi, > > I am starting to add admin boundaries of Marikina (partly because I > envy Makati!). > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=14.6442&lon=121.1174&zoom=14&layers=B000FTF > > I am now adopting seav's proposal on the admin_levels and using > relations for aggregating barangay boundaries into Marikina City > borders. > > The admin boundaries around marikina (QC, pasig, san mateo, cainta and > antipolo) maybe a bit messy right now. Partly because I am trying to > understand how to merge marikina barangay boundaries into the existing > boundaries (please don't touch them for the moment, I promise to > finish this weekend). > > The hardest part is how to tag multiple boundary levels. > > for example, the northern border of Barangay Nangka: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/35024130 > admin_level = 10 > boundary = administrative > name = Nangka > > is also the admin boundary of Marikina and San Mateo > admin_level = 6 > > which is also part of the Rizal border > admin_level = 4 > > which is also the regional boundary > admin_level = 3 > > Whew! > > When there are conflicts (in the OSM sense), I decided to treat higher > admin level (i. e. barangay and municipalities), as a "priority" over > other admin levels. > Is this good practice? > > > > -- > 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 ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] editing admin boundaries of Marikina
What I did was, 1. Create a boundary for each barangay, example is: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/35024135 admin_level = 10 boundary = administrative name = Marikina Heights pros, easier to create; cons, there will be overlapping ways. 2. Add a relation for city http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/146949 admin_level = 6 boundary = administrative name = Marikina type = multipolygon pros, it adds the whole boundaries of barangays not only the outer limits but also the inner boundaries. In short a way/polygon for the highest admin_level (in this case, level=10) and relations and relation of a relations for lower admin_level. I see the advantage of using purely relations up to the barangay level. I'll try it with my succeeding edits. Nice ascii art, btw. On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > Hi maning, > > What we and Ian do is to decompose the borders as a network of ways. Each > boundary way should only be a dividing line between any two barangays (if > known) and left unnamed and tagged with the lowest (numeric) possible > admin_level. Then the borders surrounding a barangay are collected into a > relation as are the ways surrounding a municipality, city, province, etc. > > Example: City A is composed of barangays W, X, Y and Z. > > ,,, > | 2 | 4 | > |1 W |3 | > | | X 5| > || | > | 8 7| 6 | > | || > |9 Y | | > | |11 Z 12| > | 10 | 13 | > ''' > > Hopefully the ASCII art looks ok. In this example, we have a total of 13 > ways all tagged with boundary=administrative. In addition, ways 1, 2, 4, 5, > 12, 13, 10, and 9 are tagged with admin_level=6 (city) while the rest with > admin_level=10 (barangay). > > Then create relations for each of the barangays: > > Barangay W: > type=boundary > boundary=administrative > admin_level=10 > name=W > members: 1,2,3,8 (all as blank) > > and so on. > > Then finally, City A is another relation: > type=boundary > boundary=administrative > admin_level=6 > name=A > members: 1,2,4,5,12,13,10,9 (all as blank) > > Hopefully this explains everything. > > Eugene / seav > > > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 6:36 PM, maning sambale > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I am starting to add admin boundaries of Marikina (partly because I >> envy Makati!). >> >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=14.6442&lon=121.1174&zoom=14&layers=B000FTF >> >> I am now adopting seav's proposal on the admin_levels and using >> relations for aggregating barangay boundaries into Marikina City >> borders. >> >> The admin boundaries around marikina (QC, pasig, san mateo, cainta and >> antipolo) maybe a bit messy right now. Partly because I am trying to >> understand how to merge marikina barangay boundaries into the existing >> boundaries (please don't touch them for the moment, I promise to >> finish this weekend). >> >> The hardest part is how to tag multiple boundary levels. >> >> for example, the northern border of Barangay Nangka: >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/35024130 >> admin_level = 10 >> boundary = administrative >> name = Nangka >> >> is also the admin boundary of Marikina and San Mateo >> admin_level = 6 >> >> which is also part of the Rizal border >> admin_level = 4 >> >> which is also the regional boundary >> admin_level = 3 >> >> Whew! >> >> When there are conflicts (in the OSM sense), I decided to treat higher >> admin level (i. e. barangay and municipalities), as a "priority" over >> other admin levels. >> Is this good practice? >> >> >> >> -- >> 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
Re: [talk-ph] editing admin boundaries of Marikina
Hi maning, On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:07 AM, maning sambale wrote: > 2. Add a relation for city > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/146949 > > admin_level = 6 > boundary = administrative > name = Marikina > type = multipolygon > > pros, it adds the whole boundaries of barangays not only the outer > limits but also the inner boundaries. > Having the internal boundaries is actually a con. The boundary of Marikina is its borders with other entities (like Pasig and Antipolo). The internal "boundaries" are more properly boundaries of the barangays, not of Marikina itself. In addition, because these internal boundaries are included in the relation, they are being drawn as admin_level=6 (per the relation tag) in Mapnik, though the presence of area=yes seems to mess things up. Eugene / seav ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] editing admin boundaries of Marikina
> Having the internal boundaries is actually a con. The boundary of Marikina > is its borders with other entities (like Pasig and Antipolo). The internal > "boundaries" are more properly boundaries of the barangays, not of Marikina > itself. Not entirely, IMO A barangay (which I treat as a single polygon unit) is within a municipality (a collection of barangay polygons) which is within a province (a collection municipality polygons) with a few exceptions of course and so on and so forth. > In addition, because these internal boundaries are included in the relation, > they are being drawn as admin_level=6 (per the relation tag) in Mapnik, This is a rendering problem. > though the presence of area=yes seems to mess things up. I think I removed them in Marikina let's discuss this more. PS/OT: Incidentally, at work, I'm looking at using the NCSB codes for codifying provincial polygons. Does anybody use this at all? -- 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
Re: [talk-ph] editing admin boundaries of Marikina
You can document the progress of various boundary relations within Metro Manila by posting it here. So far, some boundary relations in Quezon City needs to be "redone" and the city limits between Quezon & Marikina cities are quite unclear (specifically between the Ateneo de Manila to Tumana/Nangka area, other areas are okay). ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] editing admin boundaries of Marikina
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:09 PM, maning sambale wrote: > > Having the internal boundaries is actually a con. The boundary of > Marikina > > is its borders with other entities (like Pasig and Antipolo). The > internal > > "boundaries" are more properly boundaries of the barangays, not of > Marikina > > itself. > Not entirely, IMO > A barangay (which I treat as a single polygon unit) is within a > municipality (a collection of barangay polygons) which is within a > province (a collection municipality polygons) with a few exceptions of > course and so on and so forth. Ah, now I see where you're coming from. I agree that the barangays of Marikina are part of Marikina and that Marikina is part of Metro Manila and so on. But we are talking about boundaries here (relation type=boundary), i.e., land area perimeters, not the land area itself. That's why I think that the internal borders shouldn't be counted. > In addition, because these internal boundaries are included in the > relation, > > they are being drawn as admin_level=6 (per the relation tag) in Mapnik, > > This is a rendering problem. > > > though the presence of area=yes seems to mess things up. > I think I removed them in Marikina > > let's discuss this more. > > PS/OT: > Incidentally, at work, I'm looking at using the NCSB codes for > codifying provincial polygons. Does anybody use this at all? > I think we can use the NSCB Philippine Standard Geographic Codes to refer to the various administrative units. Maybe as ref=* tags? We can also use the ISO 3166 codes for int_ref=*. ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] editing admin boundaries of Marikina
Finally re-visited Marikina city and barangay boundaries. Please check if I made the correct relation tags. City boundary: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/146949 Barangay boundary: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Metro_Manila/Boundary_Relations#Marikina On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:09 PM, maning sambale > wrote: >> >> > Having the internal boundaries is actually a con. The boundary of >> > Marikina >> > is its borders with other entities (like Pasig and Antipolo). The >> > internal >> > "boundaries" are more properly boundaries of the barangays, not of >> > Marikina >> > itself. >> Not entirely, IMO >> A barangay (which I treat as a single polygon unit) is within a >> municipality (a collection of barangay polygons) which is within a >> province (a collection municipality polygons) with a few exceptions of >> course and so on and so forth. > > Ah, now I see where you're coming from. > > I agree that the barangays of Marikina are part of Marikina and that > Marikina is part of Metro Manila and so on. But we are talking about > boundaries here (relation type=boundary), i.e., land area perimeters, not > the land area itself. That's why I think that the internal borders shouldn't > be counted. > >> > In addition, because these internal boundaries are included in the >> > relation, >> > they are being drawn as admin_level=6 (per the relation tag) in Mapnik, >> >> This is a rendering problem. >> >> > though the presence of area=yes seems to mess things up. >> I think I removed them in Marikina >> >> let's discuss this more. >> >> PS/OT: >> Incidentally, at work, I'm looking at using the NCSB codes for >> codifying provincial polygons. Does anybody use this at all? > > I think we can use the NSCB Philippine Standard Geographic Codes to refer to > the various administrative units. Maybe as ref=* tags? We can also use the > ISO 3166 codes for int_ref=*. > > -- 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
Re: [talk-ph] editing admin boundaries of Marikina
The ones I've checked look good. One suggestion, add an admin_level=* tag to the individual ways. The number will correspond to the highest administrative boundary. So for the Marikina barangay boundaries, it will be either 10 (barangay), 6 (city), or 3 (region [Metro Manila]). On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 8:28 PM, maning sambale wrote: > Finally re-visited Marikina city and barangay boundaries. Please > check if I made the correct relation tags. > City boundary: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/146949 > Barangay boundary: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Metro_Manila/Boundary_Relations#Marikina > > ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] editing admin boundaries of Marikina
OK will do that later. On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > The ones I've checked look good. One suggestion, add an admin_level=* tag to > the individual ways. The number will correspond to the highest > administrative boundary. So for the Marikina barangay boundaries, it will be > either 10 (barangay), 6 (city), or 3 (region [Metro Manila]). > > > On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 8:28 PM, maning sambale > wrote: >> >> Finally re-visited Marikina city and barangay boundaries. Please >> check if I made the correct relation tags. >> City boundary: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/146949 >> Barangay boundary: >> >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Metro_Manila/Boundary_Relations#Marikina >> > > -- 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
Re: [talk-ph] editing admin boundaries of Marikina
I finally updated the barangay boundaries of Markina to cover all the other barangay. To all boundary relation experts, please have a look. I'm not very sure if I properly tagged the relations. The Tanong and De la Pena bnds have some conflicts. I will verify the actual boundaries with the LGU. On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 1:48 PM, maning sambale wrote: > OK will do that later. > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar > wrote: >> The ones I've checked look good. One suggestion, add an admin_level=* tag to >> the individual ways. The number will correspond to the highest >> administrative boundary. So for the Marikina barangay boundaries, it will be >> either 10 (barangay), 6 (city), or 3 (region [Metro Manila]). >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 8:28 PM, maning sambale >> wrote: >>> >>> Finally re-visited Marikina city and barangay boundaries. Please >>> check if I made the correct relation tags. >>> City boundary: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/146949 >>> Barangay boundary: >>> >>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Metro_Manila/Boundary_Relations#Marikina >>> >> >> > > > > -- > cheers, > maning > -- > "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden > wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ > blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.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
Re: [talk-ph] editing admin boundaries of Marikina
The tags on the relations are okay, but there are some stray/unused relations lying around in the area. Other than those issues (and the Tanong-Dela Pena boundaries), I can proudly say that the boundary relations for the Marikina barangays are "complete". Tony Montana: Me, I want what's coming to me. Manny Ribera: Oh, well what's coming to you? Tony Montana: The world, chico, and everything in it. - Location1: 14.069979 N, 121.32575 E Location2: 14.1598162 N, 121.2425899 E Blog: http://ianlopez1115.wordpress.com/ --- On Fri, 10/15/10, maning sambale wrote: From: maning sambale Subject: Re: [talk-ph] editing admin boundaries of Marikina To: "osm-ph" Date: Friday, October 15, 2010, 4:16 PM I finally updated the barangay boundaries of Markina to cover all the other barangay. To all boundary relation experts, please have a look. I'm not very sure if I properly tagged the relations. The Tanong and De la Pena bnds have some conflicts. I will verify the actual boundaries with the LGU. -- 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 ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
