Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fixing administrative borders
I have too much work those days for keeping me up to date to osm-threads, but what I read here is interessant. *May I suggest to ask someone to make a proposition and organise a vote* : I think it worth trying to reach legitimacy and global agreement about our discussions here, and do not speak about this until... the next reform of our Constitution/Grondwet... Julien 2011/6/13 Gerard Vanderveken g...@ghia.eu Benoit Leseul wrote: Hi, On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:16, Ben Laenen benlae...@gmail.com wrote: ... My main concern is to somehow discern the border of the German language area (after all, it's the only border not at level 4). I don't know if it's realistic, but maybe the German language area could be the only thing mapped at level 5, the other borders being obvious? If it's not, I stand by my proposition to tag language areas (in the constitutional sense) instead of communities. We are not responsible for the choices made by the governement ;-) , we map (the mess) as it is. There is no German region, and thus no boundary at level 4. There is only the community at level 5 comprising the Muncipalities of Amel, Büllingen, Burg-Reuland, Bütgenbach, Eupen, Kelmis, Lontzen, Raeren und St.Vith Because at the governement the regions and communities are on equal level and we have choosen in OSM to give them a different level (which I support), you can not make assumptions on level 4 areas comprising level 5 things and vice versa. So the whole discussion with overlaps etc in OSM is pointless. Belgium is illogical and complicated and this will also show on the mapping. [Joking] (If someone is involved in the current governement negociations, maybe they can ask for a region and province, etc for Brussels and the German East Kantons too, so we can map this properly at all levels?) [/Joking] The language regions should IMHO not be mapped , and certainly not on the administrative boundary level. Regards, Gerard. ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be -- Julien FASTRE http://www.meta-morphoses.be ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fixing administrative borders
Dear all, I like this discussion that so far I have only read as it shows clearly that citizens speaking both Flemish and French, living everywhere in Begium, can really cooperate and discuss in a constructive way to work the difficult task to map the reality that has been legally decided. We may come with interesting conclusions that some levels/parts ... are irrealistic or impossible to map from one level to another, and that this would need further discussions by politicians AND citizens in directions that may not have been taken so far. I do NOT want us to do any politics but only maybe come up with creative ideas coming from people involved more at the technical level. I hope I am well understood. Thanks for this interesting thread again. Best regards, Nicolas -- Nicolas Pettiaux, dr. sc - gsm : 0496 24 55 01 ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fixing administrative borders
Hi, On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:16, Ben Laenen benlae...@gmail.com wrote: ... My main concern is to somehow discern the border of the German language area (after all, it's the only border not at level 4). I don't know if it's realistic, but maybe the German language area could be the only thing mapped at level 5, the other borders being obvious? If it's not, I stand by my proposition to tag language areas (in the constitutional sense) instead of communities. -- Benoit ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fixing administrative borders
Benoit Leseul wrote: Hi, On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:16, Ben Laenen benlae...@gmail.com wrote: ... My main concern is to somehow discern the border of the German language area (after all, it's the only border not at level 4). I don't know if it's realistic, but maybe the German language area could be the only thing mapped at level 5, the other borders being obvious? If it's not, I stand by my proposition to tag language areas (in the constitutional sense) instead of communities. We are not responsible for the choices made by the governement ;-) , we map (the mess) as it is. There is no German region, and thus no boundary at level 4. There is only the community at level 5 comprising the Muncipalities of Amel, Büllingen, Burg-Reuland, Bütgenbach, Eupen, Kelmis, Lontzen, Raeren und St.Vith Because at the governement the regions and communities are on equal level and we have choosen in OSM to give them a different level (which I support), you can not make assumptions on level 4 areas comprising level 5 things and vice versa. So the whole discussion with overlaps etc in OSM is pointless. Belgium is illogical and complicated and this will also show on the mapping. [Joking] (If someone is involved in the current governement negociations, maybe they can ask for a region and province, etc for Brussels and the German East Kantons too, so we can map this properly at all levels?) [/Joking] The language regions should IMHO not be mapped , and certainly not on the administrative boundary level. Regards, Gerard. ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fixing administrative borders
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 11:04:56AM +0200, Ben Laenen wrote: Ralf Hermanns wrote: I think there is conflicting information here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative and here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Boundaries On the Tag:boundary=administrative page (first link) it says communities/provinces go on level 5 and arrondisments on 6 - while on the subproject page it only list the language communites on level 5 and puts provinces onto 6 (thereby moving arrondisments and towns further down) Don't have much time to reply, so a short one: Always look at the country specific page to get the answers. The international page is just there for some guiding, but the countries have to make their own rules. As is the case for Belgium. country: level 2 regions: level 4 communities: level 5 provinces: level 6 arrondissements: level 7 municipalities: level 8 district/deelgemeentes/sections: level 9 This is atleast how it used to be, and what I've always used. I have some comments about this. I think we should not map level 5, because it's more about people than it is about land. Brussels is part of both the Dutch and the French community, and last time I looked at it, it was also properly mapped like that. Brussels is also special in that it doesn't belong to any province. So it ends up with no level 6 and 2 level 5s, and a whole level 4 for itself. But my biggest problem with level 5 is that it's not actually a sublevel of 4, if mapped it would make more sense to be at the same level as the regions. And maybe we should map the 4 language regions too, if you really want to go and map everything. I also have a problem with level 7. We have 3 tpes of arrondissements: - Administrative (43 of them) - Judicial (27 of them) - Voting (depends) I would also like to point out that the name of the tag implies administration levels, so if you would want to map the arrondissements, it should be the administrative level. But I'm not sure adding them to the map adds any value when using the administrative level, as there isn't any real administration at that level. When only considering to map administrative levels, it would also mean that you can't map any sub-municipalities at level 9 because they don't have any administration, at least most don't. But I do think that mapping at level 9 where possible is useful. Maybe some of those things shouldn't be mapped as an administrative, but could be on the map with some other tag. Kurt ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fixing administrative borders
Benoit Leseul wrote: On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 20:27, Ben Laenen benlae...@gmail.com wrote: Benoit Leseul wrote: On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:18, Luc Van den Troost luc.a...@gmail.com wrote: [...] Comunities are made up of people, not of area. So putting communitie-borders on the map is kind of insane. In terms of boundaries, the belgian constitution defines four linguistic areas (régions linguistiques/taalgebieden) but not communities as geographical entities. See Art. 4 : http://www.senate.be/doc/const_nl.html#t1 http://www.senate.be/doc/const_fr.html#t1 http://www.senate.be/deutsch/const_de.html#t1 They are all contained into regional boundaries and are identical to the regions except for the deutsche Sprachgebiet. I think that's what should be mapped at that level (be it 4 or 5) and it would solve the overlap problem. The idea was to map the communities according to those language areas. If everyone agrees to map these language areas instead of communities, fine by me, but I just thought it would be odd to see something like région bilingue de Bruxelles-Capitale - tweetalige gebied Brussel-Hoofdstad appear on the map, Sure it's not pretty, but possibly less odd than overlapping areas and bigger sublevels than their upper counterparts. Maybe the name could be reduced to something like Région de Bruxelles-Capitale - Brussel-Hoofdstad since the bilingual aspect can be implied by the double name. and because it then looks like the maps you can find on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communities,_regions_and_language_areas_of_Belgium which are the maps everyone learns it with at school as well. That's probably an oversimplification, the maps are showing competence areas, not areas per se. Also, I don't know that any OSM renderer shows overlapping areas with a hatched texture. But yeah, It's complicated and I'm not sure everyone would agree one way or another. It will look strange and complex in both cases, but so is reality :) In fact for the governement, there are no overlaps. The administrative level for federal, community and region is equal and shared. However in OSM, we can not share these levels and so we have choosen that federal has level 2, region has 4 and community has 5 . (in the wiki 5 is mentioned as communities/provinces, but I would state there simply 'language communnity', because provinces has nothing to do with that) Further on, there are two administrative sublevels, provinces (6) and muncipalities (8). The level between 6 and 8, arrondissement (7) is more a judicial or political (voting) level. I don't know if we realy have to map that as administrative boundary. (You have also another level between muncipality and arrondissement, not yet defined in OSM and that is the kanton) As for the ordering of the levels, relations can lists others as subareas. According to the law, Belgium has 3 regions (Vlaanderen, Wallonië en Brussel) which are formed by provinces (except Brussels) and 3 communnities responsible for their part of the 4 language regions which are all formed by the muncipalities. What should we map from this? - the regions (level 4) as subarea of Belgium (2) - the provinces (level 6) as subarea of the regions (4) - the muncipalities (level 8) as subarea of the provinces (6) and communities (5) (and eventually the arrondissements (7)) I don't think that it will add anything, but confusion by defining other levels as subarea to certain levels as eg communities to Belgium or arrondissements to provinces. Maybe this could also as guidelines be added to the wiki. I see that the French Community for the moment incorporates the German Community (Muncipalities: Amel, Büllingen, Burg-Reuland, Bütgenbach, Eupen, Kelmis, Lontzen, Raeren und St.Vith) http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/78967 These muncipalities need some borders as they seems now to be confined in Verviers. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1407211 This is not correct. Seems also that the German Community itself is not yet defined http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Boundaries#Communities_.28Gemeenschappen_.2F_Communaut.C3.A9s_.2F_Gemeinschaften.29 Some communities has language facilities for other language groups, and altough the other community may have some competences there as organising school, does not mean that this muncipality is also part of that community. I don't think there is a mapping of these language facilities in OSM or that it should be desirable. Other levels are the villages (9) which form the muncipalities (8) and were independent muncipalities before the reform of 1977 eg Boechout http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/76297 in Boechout http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/76278 These could be listed as subarea in the relation too. Level 10 could be used for hamlets, these are small local communities, often some residential landuse around a little church or
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fixing administrative borders
Gerard Vanderveken wrote: Level 10 could be used for hamlets, these are small local communities, often some residential landuse around a little church or chapel. They have always been part of a muncipality or village. eg Terlanen in Overijse (boundary not yet mapped or defined) http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=4.5929214859minlat=50.7602102661maxl on=4.61292196274maxlat=50.7802140808 But for some, it will not be evident to know the borders (Atlas?) and mosttimes it will stay by only be mapped as place http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/473147300 I guess you could use this level 10 also for districts (as eg in Antwerp), or should we use 11, for not conflicting with hamlets? Districts in Antwerp are just a special kind of deelgemeenten/sections (the villages you speak of). It basically means that we get to elect a district counsel as well when there are city counsel elections, and so districts have a little bit of power as well, whereas deelgemeenten/sections have no own governing body. But districts and deelgemeenten/sections have to stay at the same level (9), because districts are deelgemeenten. The level 10 as said in an earlier message could be used to define neighbourhoods, and in Antwerp these are more or less well defined, take for example the district of Antwerp in the city of Antwerp (check the wijken table at http://district.antwerpen.be/ ), where each neighbourhood has a street list. Drawing boundaries from those may be still a bit of a challenge though, and I'm not sure if we want to have them at all. Furthermore, I have no idea how or even if other municipalities handle neighbourhoods. For clarity, the table of muncipalities should be extended with a column to indicate the muncipality of the village (level 9) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Boundaries#Municipal ities_and_deelgemeentes I don't know what you mean? The darker gray lines in the table are the municipalities, the lighter gray ones are the deelgemeenten/sections of the municipality above it. But the table is horribly out of date since a few guys started to draw all municipality boundaries in Flanders. Greetings Ben ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fixing administrative borders
On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 11:04:56 +0200, Ben Laenen wrote: Ralf Hermanns wrote: I think there is conflicting information here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative and here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Boundaries On the Tag:boundary=administrative page (first link) it says communities/provinces go on level 5 and arrondisments on 6 - while on the subproject page it only list the language communites on level 5 and puts provinces onto 6 (thereby moving arrondisments and towns further down) Don't have much time to reply, so a short one: Always look at the country specific page to get the answers. The international page is just there for some guiding, but the countries have to make their own rules. As is the case for Belgium. country: level 2 regions: level 4 communities: level 5 provinces: level 6 arrondissements: level 7 municipalities: level 8 district/deelgemeentes/sections: level 9 Then why is this information not on the international page? There is absolutely no reason to have conflicting information on a wiki. In this list I am missing single towns. A municipality consists of multiple towns. Should it not be: municipality:8, town:9, district/deelgemeentes/sections:10? I assume 10 can be used for sububurbs/wijken too? (does Belgium have that concept like the Netherlands?) I've just spent some time yesterday fixing numerous borders in Wallonia which were tagged incorrectly... That would probably have been avoided if the international page had shown the same information as the national one. Maarten ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fixing administrative borders
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote: Don't have much time to reply, so a short one: Always look at the country specific page to get the answers. The international page is just there for some guiding, but the countries have to make their own rules. As is the case for Belgium. country: level 2 regions: level 4 communities: level 5 provinces: level 6 arrondissements: level 7 municipalities: level 8 district/deelgemeentes/sections: level 9 Then why is this information not on the international page? There is absolutely no reason to have conflicting information on a wiki. In this list I am missing single towns. A municipality consists of multiple towns. Should it not be: municipality:8, town:9, district/deelgemeentes/sections:10? I assume 10 can be used for sububurbs/wijken too? (does Belgium have that concept like the Netherlands?) 'Deelgemeente' in Belgium is a different concept than in the Netherlands. They are former municipalities, which in the 1960s or 1970s have fused into larger municipalities. Thus, a deelgemeente/district/section is more like a town than like a wijk. -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fixing administrative borders
On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 11:22:28 +0200, Andre Engels wrote: On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote: Don't have much time to reply, so a short one: Always look at the country specific page to get the answers. The international page is just there for some guiding, but the countries have to make their own rules. As is the case for Belgium. country: level 2 regions: level 4 communities: level 5 provinces: level 6 arrondissements: level 7 municipalities: level 8 district/deelgemeentes/sections: level 9 Then why is this information not on the international page? There is absolutely no reason to have conflicting information on a wiki. In this list I am missing single towns. A municipality consists of multiple towns. Should it not be: municipality:8, town:9, district/deelgemeentes/sections:10? I assume 10 can be used for sububurbs/wijken too? (does Belgium have that concept like the Netherlands?) 'Deelgemeente' in Belgium is a different concept than in the Netherlands. They are former municipalities, which in the 1960s or 1970s have fused into larger municipalities. Thus, a deelgemeente/district/section is more like a town than like a wijk. Ok, I've also looked at wikipedia, to me it seems that from low admin_level to high it should be: - Municipality (Gemeente/Commune) - Deelgemeente/district - Town - Suburb (Wijk) That would then suggest that everything from region down should be dropped one admin_level: country: level 2 regions: level 3 communities: level 4 provinces: level 5 arrondissements: level 6 municipalities: level 7 district/deelgemeentes/sections: level 8 town: level 9 suburb: level 10 Or start using admin_level=11. Maarten ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fixing administrative borders
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:18, Luc Van den Troost luc.a...@gmail.com wrote: [...] Comunities are made up of people, not of area. So putting communitie-borders on the map is kind of insane. In terms of boundaries, the belgian constitution defines four linguistic areas (régions linguistiques/taalgebieden) but not communities as geographical entities. See Art. 4 : http://www.senate.be/doc/const_nl.html#t1 http://www.senate.be/doc/const_fr.html#t1 http://www.senate.be/deutsch/const_de.html#t1 They are all contained into regional boundaries and are identical to the regions except for the deutsche Sprachgebiet. I think that's what should be mapped at that level (be it 4 or 5) and it would solve the overlap problem. -- Benoit ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fixing administrative borders
Maarten Deen wrote: Then why is this information not on the international page? Because someone (Loll78) changed the correct entities in the table last January and because I'm not checking each wiki edit? There is absolutely no reason to have conflicting information on a wiki. In this list I am missing single towns. A municipality consists of multiple towns. Should it not be: municipality:8, town:9, district/deelgemeentes/sections:10? I have no idea what the concept of a town would be in Belgium. I assume 10 can be used for sububurbs/wijken too? (does Belgium have that concept like the Netherlands?) Yeah, there is a concept like it in some places, but it's not strictly defined as far as I know. Nevertheless I kept the admin_level 10 open for it. I don't think there's a level 10 boundary mapped in OSM in Belgium. I've just spent some time yesterday fixing numerous borders in Wallonia which were tagged incorrectly... That would probably have been avoided if the international page had shown the same information as the national one. As said, it had the correct info until someone changed it for some reason. And if I remember correctly, it's the same person who wrongly mapped those boundaries. Greetings Ben ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fixing administrative borders
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 20:27, Ben Laenen benlae...@gmail.com wrote: Benoit Leseul wrote: On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:18, Luc Van den Troost luc.a...@gmail.com wrote: [...] Comunities are made up of people, not of area. So putting communitie-borders on the map is kind of insane. In terms of boundaries, the belgian constitution defines four linguistic areas (régions linguistiques/taalgebieden) but not communities as geographical entities. See Art. 4 : http://www.senate.be/doc/const_nl.html#t1 http://www.senate.be/doc/const_fr.html#t1 http://www.senate.be/deutsch/const_de.html#t1 They are all contained into regional boundaries and are identical to the regions except for the deutsche Sprachgebiet. I think that's what should be mapped at that level (be it 4 or 5) and it would solve the overlap problem. The idea was to map the communities according to those language areas. If everyone agrees to map these language areas instead of communities, fine by me, but I just thought it would be odd to see something like région bilingue de Bruxelles-Capitale - tweetalige gebied Brussel-Hoofdstad appear on the map, Sure it's not pretty, but possibly less odd than overlapping areas and bigger sublevels than their upper counterparts. Maybe the name could be reduced to something like Région de Bruxelles-Capitale - Brussel-Hoofdstad since the bilingual aspect can be implied by the double name. and because it then looks like the maps you can find on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communities,_regions_and_language_areas_of_Belgium which are the maps everyone learns it with at school as well. That's probably an oversimplification, the maps are showing competence areas, not areas per se. Also, I don't know that any OSM renderer shows overlapping areas with a hatched texture. But yeah, It's complicated and I'm not sure everyone would agree one way or another. It will look strange and complex in both cases, but so is reality :) -- Benoit ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
