Eugene and all, Are you proposing this scheme for admin_levels?
(first row is Eugene's proposal as I understand it) 2 --> 2 - National Border (this is a worldwide convention, so there will be no 3 --> 4 - Regions 4 --> 6 - Provinces 5 --> Districts? 6 --> 8 - Cities and municipalities 8 --> 9 - Barangays and Districts of Manila 10 --> Zones 12 --> all sitios/puroks can just simply be place=*) The congressional district is very problematic in terms of level in the hierarchy. Some congressional districts covers several municipalities while others in my case, Marikina covers only barangays. I think the most critical that we agreed on is the level for barangay and cities/municipalities. The other levels can be aggregated to the above basic unit. What do others think? On 4/11/09, Eugene Alvin Villar <sea...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi > > Right now, in the mapping conventions page ( > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Philippines/Mapping_conventions) > we have the following: > > 2 - National Border (this is a worldwide convention, so there will be no > changing of this value's meaning) > 4 - Regions > 6 - Provinces > 8 - Cities and municipalities > 9 - Barangays and Districts of Manila > > I'd like to re-open the discussion on a few points. It's better we put these > things down pat before adding more barangay borders. > > *I. Boundaries of Regions* > > Is it useful to *explicitly* indicate the boundaries for regions? If not, > then we can bump up the admin_level for provinces to 4. If anyone really > wants the regional boundaries, then only a small amount of post-processing > is needed given the provincial boundaries (well, except for that weird > business with Isabela City and Cotabato City). As an alternative, since the > sort-of convention in OSM is to use the even numbers primarily and reserve > the odd numbers for special cases, then maybe we can have regions as > admin_level=3 and provinces as admin_level=4. Caveat: while regions are > generally just groupings of local government units, ARMM *does* have a > regional government. (And Metro Manila, the region, is somewhat a federation > under the MMDA.) > > Here's how we can view regions: normal regions are simply groupings of > provinces subject to the whim of the President (so that each executive > department can have regional offices for better rendering and localization > of services). ARMM is a *special* unique region having its own autonomous > government and each city and municipality AFAIK can independently choose to > be part of ARMM, not on a per province basis. This is why Isabela City is > under Basilan, but outside ARMM, even though the rest of Basilan is in ARMM. > > *II. Hierarchy of Administrative Units* > > Here is the *administrative* (i.e., congressional/judicial/police/etc. > districts are not included) hierarchy in the Philippines: > > - Regions* (no government except for ARMM, and quasi-government for Metro > Manila) > - Provinces (has a government) > - Cities / municipalities (has a government) > - Districts** (no executive government; e.g., Malate in Manila and Jaro in > Iloilo City, but not Cubao, a vaguely-defined district, in Quezon City) > - Zones (no government; cities and municipalities with zones include Manila, > Pasay, Caloocan; zones are just defined groupings of barangays for > administrative convenience) > - Barangays (has a government) > - Sitios / puroks (no government; boundaries are not always defined so maybe > all sitios/puroks can just simply be place=*) > > ** Some districts might need to be delineated. For example, Quezon City is > divided into 4 districts (numbered 1-4) and while these correspond 1-is-to-1 > with the congressional districts of Quezon City and would not normally fall > under boundary=administrative (maybe, boundary=legislative/congressional?), > each district has its own set of city councilors (which I think means that > each district can have its own set of ordinances, though I'm not sure about > the details). This makes these districts "administrative" in their own right > and might merit their own boundary=administrative tagging. > > Which of these do we include and at what values of admin_level? > > *III. Highly-urbanized Cities and Independent Component Cities* > > How do we handle the case of Highly-urbanized Cities and Independent > Component Cities? boundary=administrative implies an administration > delineation of sorts (e.g., the area delineated by the boundaries of Rizal > province is under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Government of Rizal). > HUCs and ICCs are administratively independent of their provinces (save from > unusual exceptions depending on the City Charter, like Mandaue City > residents being able to vote for Cebu Provincial positions despite being an > HUC). For example, Cebu City is a HUC and so the Cebu Provincial Government > has no legal say over the territory of Cebu CIty (except for the limited > case of paying costs to Cebu City for "hosting" the Cebu Provincial > Capitol). (This has resulted in a lot of legal battle between Cebu City and > Cebu Province, like the dispute on who has jurisdiction over Osmena Circle > in Cebu City.) > > (See this Wikipedia article section regarding independent cities: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cities_of_the_Philippines#Independent_cities ) > > > Eugene / seav > > -- > http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com > -- cheers, maning ------------------------------------------------------ "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ ------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
