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 On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 2:08 PM, maning sambale <emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com>wrote: > 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 > -- http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com
_______________________________________________ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
