Hi Eric, I am working in Bihar within Madhubani district. Could you link me to the block level shapefiles? Do you know anyone who has worked at village\panchayat level divisions?
Thanks! Khaliq On Thursday, 7 August 2014 20:15:45 UTC+5:30, Eric Dodge wrote: > This is very interesting Sharad. > > > I've been looking for maps of what I've been calling administrative blocks, > that is, the units overseen by block development officers. MGNREGA data is > aggregated at this level and I've been hoping to use the data to do some > mapping exercises. > > > > > > The census sub-districts are called differently across states (tahsil, taluk, > mandal, etc). You can see the list here: > > > http://censusindia.gov.in/Tables_Published/Admin_Units/Admin_links/subdistrict_nomeclature.html > > > > > > I know that in all the states where census sub-districts are called taluk, > mandal, or CD block (with the exception of TN), the census sub-district is > identical to the administrative block. > > > > > I've already completed a mapping exercise for Bihar using the census > sub-district map and the data matched up pretty well. If the IND_adm3 data is > indeed the administrative blocks then I could do a similar exercise with > Madhya Pradesh. I'll take a look to see if the data lines up correctly. > > > > > Has anybody dug into this issue any deeper? I've heard that tehsil comes from > the revenue side whereas taluk, mandal, etc comes from the administrative > side but that doesn't explain why the census uses different sub-district > units across states. > > > > > Best, > Eric > > > > > On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Sharad Lele <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > If I am right, then Justin may want to rename his layer as CDBlocks_2001... > > > > > Sharad > > > > On Thursday, August 7, 2014 4:28:17 PM UTC+5:30, Sharad Lele wrote: > > > > > > > > > I think I have the explanation for why I am seeing a good match and > you are not: > > > > The problem lies in defining what is the 'sub-district' unit (in > IND_adm3). Administratively speaking, it is tehsil, below which lies > CD block. Unfortunately, census gives information by CD block. So > there are more 'sub-district' units in Census than tehsils in the > country. GDAM seems to have followed the tehsil concept. > > > > To check: Karnataka is one state in which tehsil and CD block are > one and the same. That is why the sub-district layer IND_adm3 > matches perfectly for Karnataka, but not for other states. There > might be some other states where this holds good, I don't know. > > > > Anyway, so if one really wants CD block level boundaries, we have to > look at Justin, I guess. > > > > But the GDAM boundaries are not 'wrong'. > > > > Sharad > > > > > On 07-Aug-14 9:48 AM, Devdatta Tengshe > wrote: > > > > > > > > > In Continuation of my previous email, here is a CSV file > which shows just how bad the GDAM dataset is. > > > > > Regards, > > > Devdatta > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Devdatta Tengshe > <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hi Sharad, > > > > I just download the GDAM data again, to confirm what you > have said. > > > > I'm going to have to disagree with you about the quality > of the IND_adm3 data. > > > > > > Acoording to the 2001 Census, there are 5454 Sub > Districts in India. The GDAM dataset has just 2299 > features. > > > > So clearly these taluk features do not correspond to the > 2001 Census. I cross checked for some areas I have ground > knowledge of, and I can say that this dataset is not from > any specific era. Some tehsils in the file were created > post 2001, while others created in the 90's were not > present. > > > > In my opinion the GDAM data is pretty much unusable. > > > > > > Regards, > > Devdatta > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 11:36 > PM, Sharad Lele <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > I have downloaded and checked the > GADM boundaries (my version is 2011). The taluka > boundary layer probably holds good today, > becuase few talukas get split. Districts get > split regularly (every so many years) so the > district boundary layer in this GADM set is > quite of date (may apply to 2001 or so). The > spatial registration (positional accuracy is > ~1km, and the spatial detail is of course not as > good as the boundaries given in a Survey of > India 50k topo, but then that is an unfair > standard, so by a more generalized standard, the > quality is okay. > > > > Sharad > > > > > > > > On Monday, August 4, 2014 7:20:38 PM > UTC+5:30, Dilip Damle wrote: > > > Mr Thakkar, > > > > Please also look at another post (more > than one) on this group about Taluk > Shapefiles by Justin Meyers > > > > So far as I know GADM is the source that > has Taluk files. > > I am not sure about its completeness and > accuracy as on today > > > > http://www.gadm.org/ > > > > On Monday, August 4, 2014 6:23:07 PM > UTC+5:30, D Thakker wrote: > > > > > thanks Dilip for your hardwork. > > I have been on a lookout for > all taluka / tehsil shape file, so > how do I be in a loop as I am very > keen to see the repository mail / > list. > > > > > > On Monday, August 4, 2014 9:50:26 > AM UTC+5:30, Dilip Damle wrote: > > > Sharad, > > > > I am working on some things will > revert in about a week or may be > more. > > > > > Thejesh, > > > > > > > Go ahead, > > > > Actually there was one more > source a Low Resolution > (vertices) District map by > VDS technologies. > > I have it as Polylines in > Autocad. I seem to have lost > the original file. > > If anyone has then please > share it. (it does not seem > to be on their site now) > > > > On Sunday, August 3, 2014 > 11:32:43 PM UTC+5:30, > Thejesh GN wrote: > > > Actually its > not a bad idea to list > it on the wiki. Let me > know i will create an > account. > > -- > > Thejesh GN ⏚ ತೇಜೇಶ್ > ಜಿ.ಎನ್ > > http://thejeshgn.com > > GPG ID : > 0xBFFC8DD3C06DD6B0 > > On > Aug 3, 2014 10:15 PM, > "Sharad Lele" > <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Dear > Dilip and others: > > > > I have been > following this > thread with > interest, but to be > honest am a bit lost > now. Can someone > post a summary of > which maps mentioned > so far have what > features (which > coverage, pertaining > to which year, what > attributes (such as > census codes), > etc.)? Would be most > helpful. > > > > Sharad > > > > > > On Friday, August 1, > 2014 9:03:58 PM > UTC+5:30, Dilip > Damle wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > This is an old > post. > > However this is > the appropriate > place to add an > additional > source. > > > > I had downloaded > the set from > Grid Geneva many > years ago. > > The original > complete source > was named as > GNV197 which is > 24 MB > > Titled as "HUMAN > POPULATION AND > ADMINISTRATIVE > BOUNDARIES > DATABASE FOR > ASIA" > > I am attaching > the South > Central Asia E00 > file. > > > > That set > contains The > disputed areas > under the > country name IN1 > and IN2 > > > > This dataset can > not be easily > found at present > on the GRID > Geneva site > http://www.grid.unep.ch/index.php?lang=en in the > same name. > > may be it is > still there > somewhere with > some other name. > > > > For copyright > check the > metadata file > which is here > > > > > http://geonetwork.grid.unep.ch/geonetwork/srv/en/iso19139.xml?id=835 > > > > > > > rgds > > Dilip Damle > > > > On Wednesday, > January 4, 2012 > 9:52:57 AM > UTC+5:30, > Karthik > Shashidhar > wrote: > All > the shapefiles > for India that > I have > downloaded do > not show PoK > and Aksai Chin > as part of > India. Does > anyone here > have access to > shapefiles > that include > these > territories? > Basically > looking to > publish > (online) some > maps, so want > to make sure > that it's > accurate. > > > > > > > (I looked > through the > group > archives, and > all sources > mentioned > there do not > show these > regions as > part of India) > > > > > > Thanks > > Karthik > > > > > -- > > Datameet is a > community of Data > Science enthusiasts in > India. Know more about > us by visiting > http://datameet.org > > --- > > You received this > message because you > are subscribed to the > Google Groups > "datameet" group. > > To unsubscribe from > this group and stop > receiving emails from > it, send an email to > [email protected]. > > For more options, > visit > https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Datameet is a community of Data Science > enthusiasts in India. Know more about us by > visiting http://datameet.org > > --- > > You received this message because you are > subscribed to the Google Groups "datameet" > group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop > receiving emails from it, send an email to > [email protected]. > > For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Datameet is a community of Data Science enthusiasts in India. Know > more about us by visiting http://datameet.org > > --- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in > the Google Groups "datameet" group. > > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/datameet/X5kzViRMJKs/unsubscribe. > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email > to [email protected]. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > > -- > Democratizing Forest Governance in India > (In press with Oxford University Press India) > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Datameet is a community of Data Science enthusiasts in India. Know more about > us by visiting http://datameet.org > > --- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "datameet" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Datameet is a community of Data Science enthusiasts in India. Know more about us by visiting http://datameet.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "datameet" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
