Re: [Tagging] admin_level on ways
On 2020-01-27 13:59, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 13:11 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale > : > >> OSM clearly associates coastline with high water: >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Coastline >> >> If the admin boundaries are very close, or even coincident with high water, >> I would expect two ways in OSM, possibly overlaying each other, possibly >> sharing nodes. Whether they should actually share nodes is another >> discussion; the coincidence of coastline and admin boundary is not by >> design, but a consequence of our lack of accurate data. That would suggest >> they should not share nodes, so they can be updated independent of each >> other. > >> What does Italian law say about local government jurisdiction over the >> foreshore, between high water and low water? What about around estuaries, >> does the admin boundary follow the coastline up to the tidal limit? Do >> planning laws apply, for example? I understand the largest tides in the Med >> are on the African side, up to 2m. Depending on the slope of the shore, that >> could give a substantial area of foreshore. > > Actually I have just found a text which states that in the part of the land > closest to the sea the municipalities are now "having important > administrative functions", while until some years ago this area was > exclusively under national control. So with the "recent" reforms, while this > area (including beaches and beach resorts, marinas), still belongs to the > state (ownership), it is now managed by the municipalities. The division > between national property and other (public and private) property can be seen > in the IT system S.I.D. ;-) > The competence of the Municipality extends also on the territorial sea (12Nm) > when there aren't primary national interests standing against it. > > Basically, if I have understood it correctly, the state has given competences > to the Regions, which have mostly transfered them to the Municipalities and > some to the Provinces, but reserve some planning and controlling competences. > > The Provinces may depend on the legislation of the Regions, e.g. in Toscana > they have to plan, realize and maintain structures to protect the coast and > the coastal population. > They may also authorize earthworks in the coastal area and placement of > cables and ducts in the sea. > > taken from a municipal webpage: > http://www.comune.livorno.it/urbanistica-territorio/demanio/demanio-marittimo > http://www.comune.livorno.it/demanio-marittimo/riparto-delle-competenze-stato-ed-enti-locali/competenze-dello-stato > > http://www.comune.livorno.it/demanio-marittimo/riparto-delle-competenze-stato-ed-enti-locali/demanio-marittimo-pianificazione > > > You should find other relevant information also here > Titolo II, Capo 1, del Codice della Navigazione (R.D. 30.3.1942 n° 327) and > the connected > Regolamento di Esecuzione (D.P.R. 15.2.1952 n° 328). > legge n° 494/'93 art. 6 about "piani di utilizzo del demanio marittimo" > > TL;DR; > It seems, ownership (domain) remains at the national level, but there are > come competences given to regions, provinces and municipalities, which seem > to extend into the 12Nm territorial waters. > > I am sending this now because I cannot invest more time, but I am aware it is > not in a complete state ;-) Thanks, it's already a mine of information! Which supports the premise that the admin boundaries do not (blindly) follow the coastline / high water mark.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] admin_level on ways
Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 13:11 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale < colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>: > OSM clearly associates coastline with high water: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Coastline > > If the admin boundaries are very close, or even coincident with high > water, I would expect two ways in OSM, possibly overlaying each other, > possibly sharing nodes. Whether they should actually share nodes is another > discussion; the coincidence of coastline and admin boundary is not by > design, but a consequence of our lack of accurate data. That would suggest > they should not share nodes, so they can be updated independent of each > other. > > > What does Italian law say about local government jurisdiction over the > foreshore, between high water and low water? What about around estuaries, > does the admin boundary follow the coastline up to the tidal limit? Do > planning laws apply, for example? I understand the largest tides in the Med > are on the African side, up to 2m. Depending on the slope of the shore, > that could give a substantial area of foreshore. > Actually I have just found a text which states that in the part of the land closest to the sea the municipalities are now "having important administrative functions", while until some years ago this area was exclusively under national control. So with the "recent" reforms, while this area (including beaches and beach resorts, marinas), still belongs to the state (ownership), it is now managed by the municipalities. The division between national property and other (public and private) property can be seen in the IT system S.I.D. ;-) The competence of the Municipality extends also on the territorial sea (12Nm) when there aren't primary national interests standing against it. Basically, if I have understood it correctly, the state has given competences to the Regions, which have mostly transfered them to the Municipalities and some to the Provinces, but reserve some planning and controlling competences. The Provinces may depend on the legislation of the Regions, e.g. in Toscana they have to plan, realize and maintain structures to protect the coast and the coastal population. They may also authorize earthworks in the coastal area and placement of cables and ducts in the sea. taken from a municipal webpage: http://www.comune.livorno.it/urbanistica-territorio/demanio/demanio-marittimo http://www.comune.livorno.it/demanio-marittimo/riparto-delle-competenze-stato-ed-enti-locali/competenze-dello-stato http://www.comune.livorno.it/demanio-marittimo/riparto-delle-competenze-stato-ed-enti-locali/demanio-marittimo-pianificazione You should find other relevant information also here Titolo II, Capo 1, del Codice della Navigazione (R.D. 30.3.1942 n° 327) and the connected Regolamento di Esecuzione (D.P.R. 15.2.1952 n° 328). legge n° 494/'93 art. 6 about "piani di utilizzo del demanio marittimo" TL;DR; It seems, ownership (domain) remains at the national level, but there are come competences given to regions, provinces and municipalities, which seem to extend into the 12Nm territorial waters. I am sending this now because I cannot invest more time, but I am aware it is not in a complete state ;-) Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] admin_level on ways
On 2020-01-27 12:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 11:21 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale > : > >> However, practically this leeds to ambiguous situations, where for example >> admin_level=4 is added to islands and might be misinterpreted as >> administrative "standalone" level 4 entities (with the island name etc.). >> While a clear separation of administration and coastline could solve this, >> it would still mean continuous additional maintenance effort due to >> duplication of already present information. > > I would like to take this opportunity to point out that admin boundaries and > coastline are conceptually and geographically distinct, and should almost > never coincide. Admin boundaries are typically at the low-water mark, and > sometimes miles off shore, whereas the coastline is defined as the high-water > line. > > While I am aware of this, it is not something that is actually reflected in > OSM (at least in my area) and is not something I believe we can realistically > distinguish (it may be different where high and low tide are significantly > different, but if they are very close, as is the case in the mediterranean, > it is hard to map). I would not want to request to be able to distinguish > high and low water in order to be able to map administrative boundaries > (although if you do use different geometry, it is of course fine). OSM clearly associates coastline with high water: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Coastline If the admin boundaries are very close, or even coincident with high water, I would expect two ways in OSM, possibly overlaying each other, possibly sharing nodes. Whether they should actually share nodes is another discussion; the coincidence of coastline and admin boundary is not by design, but a consequence of our lack of accurate data. That would suggest they should not share nodes, so they can be updated independent of each other. What does Italian law say about local government jurisdiction over the foreshore, between high water and low water? What about around estuaries, does the admin boundary follow the coastline up to the tidal limit? Do planning laws apply, for example? I understand the largest tides in the Med are on the African side, up to 2m. Depending on the slope of the shore, that could give a substantial area of foreshore.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] admin_level on ways
> I would not want to request to be able to distinguish high and low water in > order to be able to map administrative boundaries But since the administrative boundary is defined by the "Baseline" or low water springs tide line, that's what should be mapped. Certainly it is incorrect to add the administrative boundary tags to the same way as the coastline (or add these ways to a boundary relation) if the administrative boundary is defined differently - and it almost always is. If mappers do not have a good source for administrative boundaries, they should not be mapped. Usually these need to be imported from an official source, since they are politically-defined, not based on the actual, physical shoreline. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] admin_level on ways
Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 11:21 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale < colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>: However, practically this leeds to ambiguous situations, where for example admin_level=4 is added to islands and might be misinterpreted as administrative "standalone" level 4 entities (with the island name etc.). While a clear separation of administration and coastline could solve this, it would still mean continuous additional maintenance effort due to duplication of already present information. I would like to take this opportunity to point out that admin boundaries and coastline are conceptually and geographically distinct, and should almost never coincide. Admin boundaries are typically at the low-water mark, and sometimes miles off shore, whereas the coastline is defined as the high-water line. While I am aware of this, it is not something that is actually reflected in OSM (at least in my area) and is not something I believe we can realistically distinguish (it may be different where high and low tide are significantly different, but if they are very close, as is the case in the mediterranean, it is hard to map). I would not want to request to be able to distinguish high and low water in order to be able to map administrative boundaries (although if you do use different geometry, it is of course fine). Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] admin_level on ways
27 Jan 2020, 11:43 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > I wonder what is the current state of admin_level on ways > Personally I consider this to be a pointless duplication of data. I am not fan of requesting from mappers doing work that is easy to automate. > in particular with respect to osm-carto. > It is using adminstrative relations for rendering. > Is there still a serious risk of immature applications that allow removal of > ways without taking into account relations memberships? > Yes, as long as duplicate tagging on ways is common. > Will the borders vanish from osm-carto if we rely only on relations? > No___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] admin_level on ways
On 2020-01-27 10:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I wonder what is the current state of admin_level on ways, in particular with > respect to osm-carto. Historically, the recommendation was to add the lowest > admin_level additionally to the ways that are part of admin relations (to > help applications that render boundaries based on ways, for examples > eliminates the need of "flattening" overlapping boundaries in case you would > want to use non-continuous line styles). Another related issue is the hierarchy or precedence of types of boundaries; where an admin boundary is also the boundary of a national park, or a political area for example. What do you put in boundary=* on the way? I always put something in there, so my usual editor for boundary stuff (Potlatch2!!!) shows a distinctive line, instead of a narrow black line which is also used for millions of other types of way like barrier=*. Admin_level is only defined for boundary=administrative, so if the way was tagged as boundary=political then admin_level=* might be flagged as a potential error. Hence I give boundary=administrative the highest priority on the ways. > However, practically this leeds to ambiguous situations, where for example > admin_level=4 is added to islands and might be misinterpreted as > administrative "standalone" level 4 entities (with the island name etc.). > While a clear separation of administration and coastline could solve this, it > would still mean continuous additional maintenance effort due to duplication > of already present information. I would like to take this opportunity to point out that admin boundaries and coastline are conceptually and geographically distinct, and should almost never coincide. Admin boundaries are typically at the low-water mark, and sometimes miles off shore, whereas the coastline is defined as the high-water line. I know there are different variants of "high water" and "low water", but they are irrelevant here. The admin boundary will coincide with the coastline where there is a vertical wall or cliff. The island name should I guess be on the coastline; this mostly also be a multipolygon relation for that island, so in that case the name should be on that relation.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] admin_level on ways
I wonder what is the current state of admin_level on ways, in particular with respect to osm-carto. Historically, the recommendation was to add the lowest admin_level additionally to the ways that are part of admin relations (to help applications that render boundaries based on ways, for examples eliminates the need of "flattening" overlapping boundaries in case you would want to use non-continuous line styles). However, practically this leeds to ambiguous situations, where for example admin_level=4 is added to islands and might be misinterpreted as administrative "standalone" level 4 entities (with the island name etc.). While a clear separation of administration and coastline could solve this, it would still mean continuous additional maintenance effort due to duplication of already present information. Is there still a serious risk of immature applications that allow removal of ways without taking into account relations memberships? Will the borders vanish from osm-carto if we rely only on relations? Does iD require admin tags on ways? Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
