The contact I had in the government of Quebec have raised issues on delivering up-to-date datasets in OSM, such as the Administrative boundaries of Québec (BDGA). Could someone help this person to understand quickly the advantage for his organisation to share its data with the OSM community. Here are some of his reserve : - He does not want his administration to be wrongly identified as the contributor if someone of OSM edit his data that has been integrated in OSM; - He does want an attribution somewhere; - He does not want someone to call his administration because their is an error in the data when it was someone of OSM that has edited the data, not his organisation; - He is willing to cooperate, but he has issue when users edit his data and his organisation is wrongly identified has the producer.
Thanks for your help. Cheers, Nicolas 2010/1/25 Bégin, Daniel <daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca> > Hi Frank, > > You're asking if the community should wait for that?!! > > I can't answer for you guys but here is some information that might help > ... > > Administrative boundaries of Québec is ... > - the result of a generalisation process to 1:1 000 000 > - available now! > > The GeoBase Administrative boundaries product will ... > - cover the entire contry. > - not be the result of a generalisation process. > - be available later this year. > - have a boundaries classification similar to the one from Québec. > > Bonne réflexion! > > Daniel > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Steggink [mailto:stegg...@steggink.org] > Sent: 22 janvier 2010 23:43 > To: Bégin, Daniel > Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Administrative boundaries of Québec > > Hi Daniel, > > Great to hear that :) Do you think we are able to wait for that? It might > be interesting to pursue to see if the gov't has more interesting stuff > available. > > Frank > > Bégin wrote: > > Hi, just a short message concerning administrative boundaries... > > > > We are working on it for a while with the provinces. It should be made > > available on GeoBase later this year. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Daniel > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > *From:* talk-ca-boun...@openstreetmap.org > > [mailto:talk-ca-boun...@openstreetmap.org] *On Behalf Of *Nicolas > > Gignac > > *Sent:* 19 janvier 2010 13:41 > > *To:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap > > *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Administrative boundaries of Québec > > > > For electoral boundaries, see these links: > > - Federal levels : > > http://geogratis.cgdi.gc.ca/geogratis/fr/download/electoral.html > > - Provincial levels : > > http://www.electionsquebec.qc.ca/francais/provincial/carte-electorale/ > > geometrie-des-circonscriptions-provinciales-du-quebec.php > > > > Nicolas > > > > 2010/1/19 <stegg...@steggink.org <mailto:stegg...@steggink.org>> > > > > Hi Pierre-Luc, > > > > Thank you for your insights. I was under the impression that the > > Communautés métropolitaines had less authority than MRCs, although I > > didn't look into it. If it weren't for these "comet"s (as this > dataset > > is called), there wouldn't be a problem. > > > > However, when looking at the extent of the Communauté métropolitaine > > de Québec ([1]), it turns out that it spans multiple regions > > (Capitale-Nationale and Chaudière-Appalaches), so it doesn't fit > > nicely in the hierarchy. I think it would be better to treat them as > a > > different entity, and admin_level=6 can be used for the MRCs. The > > Montreal "comet" contains municipalities of even more regions > > (Montreal, Laval, Montérégie, Laurentides, Lanaudière). > > > > Regarding MRCs vs urban areas: I'll check in the data if that > > information can be disseminated. Because they and MRCs are mutually > > exclusive, they can have the same admin_level, but their designations > > should properly reflect the situation. Wikipedia has an overview of > > the agglomerations: [2]. I wonder if this list is really complete, > and > > I don't think that all of them are MRC equivalents. In Quebec City > > there are also the enclaves of Wendake (First Nations) and > > Notre-Dame-des-Anges (covering only the Hôpital général de Québec). > > Anyways, I'll use the information from the geodata, and not base > > anything on Wikipedia. > > > > The borough map of Quebec is already outdated. Things got change on > > Nov 1st last year. La Cité and Limoilou have merged, and Laurentides > > has been divided over other boroughs. See [3]. Anyways, a minor > detail > > :) > > > > For the other types of boundaries (electorial districts, > > schoolboards), other values for the boundary keys should be used. [4] > > For electorial boundaries boundary=political is used > > ("boundary=electorial" would be better imho). > > > > Regards, > > > > Frank > > > > [1] > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communaut%C3%A9_m%C3%A9tropolitaine_de_Qu%C3%A9bec > > [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_agglomerations_of_Quebec > > [3] > > > http://www.ville.quebec.qc.ca/temp/modifications_arrondissements/index.aspx > > [4] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:boundary > > > > Quoting Pierre-Luc Beaudoin <pierre-...@pierlux.com > > <mailto:pierre-...@pierlux.com>>: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Let's start a thread to create an official organization of the > > > administrative divisions in regards with the numbering in OSM [1]. > > > > > > Skipping levels higher than 4 (reserved for things greater than > > Québec). > > > > > > Here's my first shot based on all the info I could find on the > > Ministère > > > des affaires minicipales, des régions de l'Occupation du territoire > > > (gosh they like the long names!) [3]: > > > > > > Level 4: Provinces and territories > > > Level 5: Région administratives / Administrative regions > > > (Level 5.5: Here would fit L'Agence métropolitaine de transport, > not > > > worth mapping) > > > Level 6: Communautés métropolitaines / Urbans or metropolitan > > communities > > > Level 7: Municipalités régionales de compté (MRCs) > > > (Level 7.5: Here would fit the Conférences régionales des élus of > > > Montérégie (which is divided in 3), other CRÉ match their MRC > > > boundaries, but I believe this information is not worth of mapping. > > > Maps [4]). > > > Level 8: Municipalités et villes / Municipalities, Cities > > > Level 9: Arrondissements / Boroughs > > > Level 10: Quartier / Quarter > > > > > > This list does not contain federal electoral districts, provincial > > > electoral districts, municipal electoral districts, school boards, > > > "Régions municipales de recensement" and "Agglomérations de > > > recensement" [5] (what are theses?). Should we include all of them? > > > > > > Now if you look closely at the wiki table, my suggestion doesn't > fit > > > with the rest of Canada: Québec's MRCs would be one level down > > compared > > > to Ontario. That's because we have 2 levels between the > > province and > > > the cities. > > > > > > A real life example would be for the place I used to live in Québec > > > City: > > > > > > Level 4: Québec > > > Level 5: Capitale-Nationale (ref=03) > > > Level 6: Communauté urbaine de Québec > > > Level 7 is N/A (Québec is not part of an MRC, being a big city) > > > Level 8: Québec > > > Level 9: La cité (Map of the borough [2]) > > > Level 10: Montcalm > > > > > > I believe it would make sens for all those names show up on a map > as > > > they are commonly used. > > > > > > Are there other opinions? > > > > > > Pierre-Luc > > > > > > NB: I believe there was a report from the OCDE stating that > > Montréal was > > > being over administrated. I agree :) > > > > > > [1]: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary=administrative > > > [2]: > > > > > > http://www.ville.quebec.qc.ca/apropos/portrait/arrondissements/lacite/plan.aspx > > > [3] http://www.mamrot.gouv.qc.ca > > > [4] http://www.mamrot.gouv.qc.ca/publications/cartotheque/CRE.pdf > > > [5] > > > > > > http://www.mamrot.gouv.qc.ca/publications/cartotheque/atlas_AR_RMR.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-ca mailing list > > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-ca mailing list > > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-ca mailing list > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
