On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Pierre Béland <infosbelas-...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> This is a hierarchical system were you first define level 6 boundaries. Then > you can split level 6 in many level 8 boundaries. In such a system, you > dont leave holes at the upper level when you only have one child. But for a hierarchy to work, each level above needs to related to the one below. I live in house number 28 on Curlew Crescent in the urban area of Sherwood Park in the specialized municipality of Strathcona County in the province of Alberta, in the country of Canada on the North American continent on the planet Earth. Each of those levels is directly related to the one on either side of it. To do what you suggest for the city of Edmonton would be similar to the below. Shaw Conference Center, 9797 Jasper Ave Northwest, in the city of Edmonton, in the county of Edmonton in the province of Alberta, in the country of Canada on the North American continent on the planet Earth. The problem there is that there is no county of Edmonton. The city of Edmonton is the equivalent of a county as far a looking at the map is concerned. Here's an accurate description: Shaw Conference Center, 9797 Jasper Ave Northwest, in the city of Edmonton, in the province of Alberta, in the country of Canada on the North American continent on the planet Earth. > You have examples elsewhere. Paris, France, for example has three relations > fort levels 6,7,8. > - level 6 : http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/71525 > - level 7 : http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1641193 > - level 8 : http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/7444 I do not know the administrative realities of Paris, France. It may actually be part of each of these levels. > For the province of Alberta, administrative limits have to be established > for both level 6 (county) and level 8 (municipalities). > > For Edmonton, since the county contains only one city, I have duplicated the > relation. The two Edmonton relations, level 6 and level 8 define the same > area. > - level=6 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2564500 > - level=8 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2563550 As above, there is no county of Edmonton. My argument is that creating a shapefile defining a non-existent county just to put a colour on the map is "tagging for the renderer". Any municipality declaring itself a city effectively removes itself from the surrounding municipal district. The city of Leduc has no relation to the county of Leduc. The village of Leduc was incorporated in 1899, then changing to a town in 1905. All that time it was part of the county of Leduc, but in 1983 when it declared itself a city, it became an entity separate from the county of Leduc. There may be places where a city can be part of a county (ie. Spokane, Washington is part of Spokane County), but that is not the case in Alberta. I believe Saskatchewan is the same as Alberta where the cities are not part of the adjoining rural municipalities. I'm not sure what the status is across the whole of Canada. -- James VE6SRV _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
