On 2013-11-13 17:20, Ben Laenen wrote :
> On Wednesday 13 November 2013 16:27:11 André Pirard wrote:
>> The issue seems clear to me, especially in French.
>> We have 3 kinds of persons according to the official language they
>> speak, but we have *4 territories* one of which is bilingual in the
>> sense that their people can choose between two languages. "behorend tot
>> zowel" is ambiguous: it should made clear that it speaks of the persons
>> and not the territories.
>> But that's obvious. A territory cannot be inside 2 disjoint territories,
>> and that's the problem...
>> As OSM is obviously drawing territories, the communities do not fit in
>> relations, these must contain territories
>>
>> As nobody cares, as I am presently involved in Brussels modifications,
>> and as I know boundaries well, I can do that:
>> - add a 4th territory aka community for Brussels.
> Please don't make up names. There's no Brussels community so don't invent
> one.
I don't make up names at all.
I'm asking (*?* below) what Brussels linguistic region should be called.
Please read my message below carefully.
> The three territories are called:
>
> Flemish Community, Communauté flamande, Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Flämische
> Gemeinschaft
> French Community, Communauté française, Franse Gemeenschap,
> Französische Gemeinschaft
> German-speaking Community, Communauté germanophone, Duitstalige
> Gemeenschap, Deutschsprachige Gemeinschaft
>
> They should normally not be called territories, but I'm not going to
> start a misunderstood revolution.
> Brussels' Community? Bilingual Community?
Let us use the correct words instead.
The constitution defines *3 linguistic communities* and *4 linguistic
regions*
<https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9gislation_sur_l%27usage_des_langues_en_Belgique>.
Communities are people and people cannot be shown on a map, only the
territories where they live.
Hence, the Belgian map must contain the *linguistic **regions* and not
the communities.
The present names "XXX community" are wrong and should be "XXX region".
These XXX regions are Flemish speaking, French speaking, German
speaking and Brussels bilingual.
They presently use boundary=political but there is no such one for
Brussels, it should be created.
I was asking for their names (*?*).
In case "XXX community" is continued to be used, I showed that "Brussels
community?" is impossible.
In principle, their official names are here.
<http://www.dgparlament.be/fr/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-2890/5450_read-35054/>
So, in addition to correcting those wrong names:
* a Brussels bilingual region should be added, it should be inside
Belgium.
* Brussels-Capital Region
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/54094> should be
removed from within French and Flemish speaking regions.
* there should be a hole in the Flemish region to put that
Brussels-Capital bilingual region into
* the wiki should describe that correctly
But wait...
> The one thing I now agree with is getting the communities out of the
> administrative boundaries, if only to please software that gets its
> mind blown when it belongs to two entities of the same kind at once.
You mean to get the boundary=political (linguistic regions) out of the
boundary=administrative ones.
> But that seems to have happened anyway already, see
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/78967 . You just have to
> wait until nominatim has updated its database.
But for Nominatim we must also have no administrative inside political.
And that's not the case.
For example:
German speaking region is inside both administrative Liège and Verviers,
plus Belgique
Région de Bruxelles-Capitale inside French
Région de Bruxelles-Capitale inside Flemish
I discovered boundary=*administrative_fraction* relations that are made up:
Wallonie (Communauté française) administrative_fraction (?) inside French
Liège (Communauté française) inside it and Liège
And relation Verviers is not inside anything.
It is a COMPLETE MESS !!!!
But now, *regarding Nominatim*:
Village Louveigné,
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=5.71107006072998&minlat=50.530647277832&maxlon=5.71107053756714&maxlat=50.5306510925293>Louveigné
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=5.71107006072998&minlat=50.530647277832&maxlon=5.71107053756714&maxlat=50.5306510925293>,
Liège, *Communauté française*, Wallonie, Belgique
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=5.71107006072998&minlat=50.530647277832&maxlon=5.71107053756714&maxlat=50.5306510925293>
Nominatim *mixes* administrative and *political* boundaries
It should be one or both of:
administrative: Louveigné, Louveigné, Sprimont, Liège (arr), Liège
(prov),Wallonie, Belgique
linguistic: Village Louveigné,*Communauté française*, Belgique
(BTW, it completely ignores is_in
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:is%20in?uselang=fr> = Sprimont,
Liège, Wallonie, Belgique, Europe)
I already showed that with mixed Yosemite National Park and
administrative boundaries.
So, Nominatim not only ignores our subarea nesting but also the types of
boundaries.
Nominatim just considers any boundary area inside another boundary area
topologically.
And it remains to figure why it skipped one Liège and how it managed to
put Communauté française inside Wallonie.
So, in order to have Nominatim work correctly, get rid of all those
boundary mistakes and to have people finally grasp something when
looking at the boundary tags, I recommend dropping the political and
administrative_fraction boundary types and to use a simple and
conventional tree like this:
* Belgium (52411) <http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/52411>
o Brussels-Capital Region (54094)
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/54094>
o Flemish Region (53134)
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/53134>
+ provinces
o Wallonia - (90348)
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/90348>
+ other provinces
+ Liège (1407192)
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1407192>
# Liège (2620916)
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2620916>
(arrondissement)
# Verviers (French-speaking part) (2436189)
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2436189>
# German-speaking Region (Verviers) (2425209)
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2425209>
Any name change you like.
I think it's clear enough.
Otherwise, I think that Nominatim will never work correctly.
Cheers,
André.
_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
