Bonjour, I'm working on the Canvec.osm - release 10 - conversion process and I'd like to double check an answer I got from Paul concerning administrative boundaries.
Release 10 will contain up to three administrative boundary types where available ... - Regional - Upper Municipality - Municipality The Osm admin_level tag usually correspond to the gdf_level ISO standard . In GeoBase product, the value of these boundaries were identified as gdf_level 6,7 and 8 respectively. In Openstreetmap wiki, the admin_level were set to 5,6 and 8 respectively. Is the difference between both are caused by a problem with the wiki or a consensus on the community? If it is a documented consensus, I'll keep the values of the wiki. If not, I'll use the the values from GeoBase. Comments? Daniel ________________________________ From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: February 14, 2012 15:09 To: Bégin, Daniel; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Administrative Boundary The levels in your initial email > 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 From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 12:07 PM To: Paul Norman; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Administrative Boundary 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 Question mark! Daniel ________________________________ From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com]<mailto:[mailto:penor...@mac.com]> Sent: February 14, 2012 14:57 To: Bégin, Daniel; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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]<mailto:[mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca]> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 5:54 AM To: Paul Norman; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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]<mailto:[mailto:penor...@mac.com]> Sent: February 9, 2012 17:15 To: Bégin, Daniel; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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]<mailto:[mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca]> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 1:39 PM To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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 (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<mailto:dbe...@nrcan.gc.ca>
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
