I am in favor of the proposed changes, which is more refined than the current scheme that is now being implemented. Regarding some places mentioned by Eugene, Projects 2-8 are either administered by a similarly named barangay (Projects 4, 6, 7 & 8), or by barangays with different names. San Francisco del Monte is now (probably) composed of Barangay Del Monte and nearby barangays.
In tagging legislative/congressional districts, the tag should be boundary=political, per the previous comment that "representatives do not "administer" their respctive legislative districts." --- On Mon, 5/4/09, maning sambale <emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com> wrote: From: maning sambale <emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [talk-ph] Revisiting the admin_level values for boundary=administrative To: "Eugene Alvin Villar" <sea...@gmail.com> Cc: "OSM" <talk-ph@openstreetmap.org> Date: Monday, May 4, 2009, 12:18 PM Added a your proposal in the mapping conventions page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Philippines/Mapping_conventions#Administrative_boundaries I propose we replace the old scheme, once other people have commented/raised their reactions. On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar <sea...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi maning, > > Actually, I mentioned in my e-mail that I have specifically excluded > congressional districts[1] from the discussion since these do not specify > administrative boundaries. Aside from the pork barrel, the representatives > don't *administer* their territories. I think these should be tagged as > boundary=legislative/congressional and not as boundary=administrative.[2] > > I've done a bit more research since my initial e-mail and here is my > proposed values for admin_level: > > 2 - National border > 3 - Regions > 4 - Provinces > 5 - Sangguniang Panlalawigan districts (if any) > 6 - Cities/Municipalities > 7 - Sangguniang Panlungsod/Bayan districts (if any) > 8 - Other administrative districts[3] (if any) > 9 - Zones (if any) > 10 - Barangays > 12 - Sitios/Puroks (if any, but only if boundaries are defined) > > The Sangguniang Lalawigan/Lungsod/Bayan districts are mentioned in Republic > Act No. 7887[4]. These districts basically apportion the members of the > LGU's Sanggunian. Since the Sanggunian is an administrative entity (it's the > one that creates the local laws or ordinances), then it's proper that their > districts also be given admin_levels. > > These proposed values have the proviso that admin_level=3 is *not* > automatically an admin_level=4|5 due to the weird nature of Isabela City and > the ARMM. (But, as long as all boundaries are grouped into relations, then > there should be no problem with interpretations.) > > > Eugene / seav > > ------------- > [1] The proper legal term is "legislative district". > > [2] We can also have boundary=judicial (for the jurisdictions of the > Regional and Metropolitan trial courts) and boundary=police (like Manila's > Western Police District). Also, Catholic archdioceses and dioceses, anyone > (boundary=catholic)? :-) > > [3] Examples of other non-Sanggunian districts: > > A. Manila has 6 Sangguniang districts (I to VI) co-terminous with the > legislative districts and these are further subdivided into 17 geographical > districts: Tondo 1, Tondo 2, Sta. Cruz, Sampaloc, Sta. Mesa, Quiapo, > Binondo, San Miguel, San Nicolas, Port Area, Intramuros, Paco, Pandacan, > Ermita, Malate, Sta. Ana, and San Andres. These districts are further > subdivided into 100 zones. (Tondo 1 and Tondo 2 used to be one district, > while San Andres used to be part of Sta. Ana and Sta. Mesa used to be part > of Sampaloc.) > > B. Iloilo City has 6 districts: Arevalo, City Proper, Jaro, La Paz, > Mandurriao, and Molo. (Iloilo City has only 1 legislative district.) > > C. Davao City has 3 Sangguniang districts (1 to 3) co-terminous with the > legislative districts and these are further subdivided into 11 > administrative districts: Poblacion, Talomo, Agdao, Buhangin, Bunawan, > Paquibato, Baguio, Calinan, Marilog, Toril, and Tugbok. > > D. Pasay City has 7 districts (1 to 7) subdivided into 20 zones. (Pasay City > has only 1 legislative district.) > > N.B. Quezon City "districts" like Cubao, Diliman, La Loma, San Francisco del > Monte, Projects 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, etc. DO NOT have legally defined borders > so > they won't have a place in the admin_level scheme. > > [4] http://www.chanrobles.com/republicacts/republicactno7887.html
_______________________________________________ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
