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.
