Bumping this up, because I don't think this issue has been
resolved yet. I now have 4 different versions of Indian
administrative boundaries, and my current nightmare is getting
protected area boundaries to line up with them accurately.
What's the best *open* version of Indian administrative
boundaries, down to the Tehsil/Block level, and is there a place
from where it is easily available?
(I'm not even going to ask for village-level data, because among
other things, what we're doing now is digitising revenue village
maps because the MRD itself doesn't have digitised village level
data...yet.)
On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 2:02:37 PM UTC+5:30, D Thakker
wrote:
Eric, in my research / experience i have found that
Sub-district, Mandal, Taluka, Tehsil means same and are
division of District when it comes to Census.
But for Revenue dept boundaries are drawn and managed by
district administrative bodies who report to state
administration only.
So for census - District and Sub-district are well defined
boundaries, and I understand from 2011 Census India has
bought a started numbering system which should make future
data reconciliation easier
But for land revenue depaetment - it really depends on the
local administrative reach and function, and is managed and
controlled by state admin bodies.
For eg. Surat has some discrepancy when it comes to Revenue
and Census boundaries. This was something I came across and
even local admin bodies in Surat were not aware
On Thursday, August 7, 2014 at 8:15:45 PM 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
<http://www.socialjustice.nic.in/pdf/tab11.pdf>.
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 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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
