Hi Paul, 
are you saying that I should use ...
 
ISO value for admin_level (6 & 7 - actually what is used in the GeoBase 
product), or
what is identified in the wiki (5 & 6) 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Admin_level 
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Admin_level>  
 
Question mark!
 
Daniel
 
 
 
________________________________

From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] 
Sent: February 14, 2012 14:57
To: Bégin, Daniel; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Administrative Boundary



>From the wiki, those look consistent with what I've seen locally, although 
>naturally I can't comment about Quebec.

 

From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] 
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 5:54 AM
To: Paul Norman; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Administrative Boundary

 

Bonjour Norman,

 

ISO Level 7 (Upper municipality) refers to an administrative area like the 
County of Peterborough (ON), while the ISO Level 6 (Municipal Regional) refers 
to an administrative area like Eastern Townships in Québec (a group of county - 
a level that exist only in Québec)

 

Regards,

Daniel

________________________________

From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] 
Sent: February 9, 2012 17:15
To: Bégin, Daniel; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Administrative Boundary

Can you give an example of a municipal regional or upper municipality? Looking 
at the global usage, admin_level=5 is seldom used. I would think that Municipal 
Regional would be 6 and upper municipality would be 7, but I can't really say 
without examples.

 

I would also suggest that these features in the .osm file not be closed - just 
have the boundary, don't handle it like lakes where you have multiple areas you 
need to join where they cross tile bounds.

 

From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] 
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 1:39 PM
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-ca] Administrative Boundary

 

Bonjour again! 

Available administrative boundary will be included in the next release of 
Canvec.osm.  From the wiki, here is the tagging values I'm going to use...

Municipal Regional:  boundary=administrative; admin_level=5 
Upper municipality:  boundary=administrative; admin_level=6 
Municipality:        boundary=administrative; admin_level=8 

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Admin_level 
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Admin_level>  (Canada) 

 

Municipality admin_level=8 corresponds to gdf order in ISO standard. 
  
Municipal Regional Area and Upper Municipality (admin_level=5 and 6) are 
different from what the ISO standard says (gdf order=6 and 7). Is someone can 
confirm that admin_level=5 and 6 is really what is expected?

Thanks again 

Daniel Bégin 
Centre d'information topographique de Sherbrooke 
Topographic Information Center of  Sherbrooke
Ressources Naturelles Canada / Natural Ressources Canada
2144, rue King Ouest, bureau 010
Sherbrooke (Québec) J1J 2E8
(819) 564-5600 ext.242, dbe...@nrcan.gc.ca 

 

_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Reply via email to