Looks like I missed the activity on this post.

The best source for this dataset is the data collected and released by 
Justin Mayers in August Last 
year: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/datameet/GJKMXXSB-Ns/fS7HM_xzM3EJ

@Nisha, Should I write a summary post on this as you had suggested?

Regards,
Dev

On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 10:33:16 AM UTC+5:30, Shashank wrote:
>
> 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 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.
              • ... Sharad Lele [शरच्चंद्र लेले]
              • ... Nagarajan M
              • ... Sharad Lele [शरच्चंद्र लेले]
              • ... Dipal Thakker
              • ... Nagarajan M
              • ... Dipal Thakker
              • ... Dipal Thakker
              • ... Nisha Thompson
              • ... Dipal Thakker
              • ... Indranil Gayen
              • ... Devdatta Tengshe
              • ... Dipal Thakker
              • ... Justin Meyers
              • ... Sharad Lele [शरच्चंद्र लेले]
              • ... Justin Meyers
              • ... Dilip Damle
              • ... Sharad Lele
              • ... Dilip Damle
              • ... Sourav Sarkar
  • [datameet] Re: Shap... Antariksh Tyagi

Reply via email to