Where I tagged some level 9 part-municipalities I checked the website of
the municipality. Mostly they have a list of what they consider as their
part-municipalities.
If they have such a list then it is a better basis for level 9
part-municipalities than the history of fusions.
Op 30-11-15 om 19:17 schreef joost schouppe:
Interesting discussion. I wonder if there is an official dataset of
"deelgemeenten" out there. They still exist very much in the minds of
people, often being used in adresses for instance. So I do think they
belong in OSM. A clustered dataset of statistical sectors might help,
if ever that becomes open data.
For the one-to-many relationships of these "deelgemeenten", I wonder
how locals percieve them. To stick to the Antwerp example, do the
people of the former Ekeren municipality that now belongs to Kappelen
consider themselves somehow still as Ekeren? I would suggest only
mapping one-on-one relations (the cases before the "or"), and leave
the more complicated ones out for the moment. Then investigate whether
or not they exist in the heads of people.
As for the statistical sectors, I don't see much use of adding them
OSM. At the city of Antwerp, we actually release "ours" as open data
[1], so, for example users of the mentioned Buurtmonitor might take
the data elsewhere and make their own maps. Makes me wonder if we
actually own the data enough to do that.
And indeed, gent.buurtmonitor.be <http://gent.buurtmonitor.be> uses
basically the same kind if setup Antwerp does.
--
[1] http://opendata.antwerpen.be/datasets/statistische-sectoren
2015-11-30 17:25 GMT+01:00 Vincent Van Eyken
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>:
Thanks for the feedback.
I understand the argument for neatly nested relations, and I
agree, it should be that straightforward. So, the existing
anomalies should be fixed. But it’s the “or” part of the solution
that still poses a problem then: putting a less-significant area
on the same level (9) as complete part-municipalities or annexing
it as A10 to the nearest A9 to which it never really belonged.
What criteria to use?
And is there (should there be?) any ‘good’ way to still link
‘orphaned’ and split-off areas to their pre-1977 configuration,
since a boundary relation (like the one created for Oombergen),
though historically verifiable, does not correspond to any current
administrative (or other) reality.
And to digress a bit on statistical sectors:
I just took them as an example, since they are the smallest
well-defined entities, and can be viewed by the public in several
applications. [1] Indeed, they are not available as open data yet
(and won’t be soon, I guess?) and I’m certainly not suggesting an
illegal import. But if they are ever to be imported or mapped, I
would suggest admin_level 11 or 12, leaving room for distinct
parts of part-municipalities that tare larger than sectors. Or
indeed dump the admin part and just use boundary=statistical,
since they are essentially just that.
E.g. the Stad Antwerpen administration is clearly making use of
the sectors [2], calling them “buurten”. Clusters of sectors are
called “wijken”, which in their turn are grouped together into the
“districten”. Translated into admin_levels this would give: buurt
(11) < wijk (10) < district (9). Note however: District
Berendrecht-Zandvliet-Lillo only contains the “wijk” Polder + an
uninhabited port/industrial area, but was never a municipality in
itself, as it is the merger of 3 pre-1958 municipalities, that are
still more easily distinguishable than many “wijken” of the more
urbanized districts.
I believe Ghent uses a similar system, though there several
(super-)sectorial boundaries not always match the pre-1977
municipal ones, I think.
Anyway the sectors are not yet the issue here.
---
[1] http://www.ngi.be/topomapviewer/public;
http://www.ruimtemonitor.be/geoloket/; etc
[2] http://www.antwerpen.buurtmonitor.be/
*Van:*Sander Deryckere [mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>]
*Verzonden:* maandag 30 november 2015 14:09
*Aan:* OpenStreetMap Belgium <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*Onderwerp:* Re: [OSM-talk-be] Sub-municipal admin boundary relations
IMO, admin levels should nest nicely. That's also why the
"gemeenschappen" are no administrative boundaries, but political
ones. They don't match with the other structures like provinces
and arrondissements.
So for Oombergen, there are two possibilities: Split Oombergen in
two A9 relations and add them to both municipalities (if the
split-off part is big), or keep only one Oombergen relation in one
municipality, and add the split-off part to a different
part-municipality.
Part-municipalities are still used in administration (mostly as
part of addresses, though bPost doesn't prefer them), and they're
verifiable (from historic data). So they fit into OSM.
I can also see where you're going with NIS-INS statistical
sectors. They're verifiable (from a central authority),
well-defined, and used in administration. So if they match the
existing boundary definitions, they could be used for an A10
level. Though I wonder where you'll get the data from. AFAIK,
NIS-INS data is still closed? Also note that not all boundaries
should be administrative. I think adding a boundary=statistical is
not an issue in case the statistical boundaries don't match our
current administrative ones.
And, for all other levels, I fear that it's not really verifiable,
which is a key-requirement for inclusion in OSM.
Regards,
Sander
2015-11-30 13:34 GMT+01:00 Vincent Van Eyken
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>:
Hi to all
Following a question on the forum [1], pointed out to me by
escada, I think it might be useful to ask the mailing list for
a general opinion as well… It’s about how to map
part-municipality relations [2], something I tend to do from
time to time so…
I think this issue has probably been discussed a few times
already on the mailing list and wiki (but without reaching a
clear consensus on solid guidelines for the smallest
admin_levels?)
So here is a summary of how I think the matter stands and how
I try to map accordingly: (for Dutch, see the forum post)
Admin_level=8: municipality
admin_level=9: “part-municipality”; areas that were a separate
municipality up until 1950-1960
admin_level=10: a distinct, major part of a
(part-)municipality, with a distinctive ‘core’
(village/hamlet/…) and a well-defined boundary; major splits
from the original municipality, or suburbs/large
neighbourhoods (“wijk”) of the ‘new’ municipality
admin_level=11: smaller split parts of ex-municipalities,
smaller neighbourhoods (“buurt”), statistical sectors (NIS-INS)?
or admin_level=12 for statistical sectors (IF they are to be
mapped in OSM at all)?
Of course admin_level>=9 has no clear legal basis anymore
(except for the districts in Antwerp, and maybe the
statistical sectors), only a historical-sociological-mental-…
one, so they are hard to define and classify hierarchically,
both in OSM and in ‘real life’…
Open questions:
should the whole territory in the end be divided in
admin_level=9 relations? (what with split ex-municipalities?
And never-merged ones?)
is one admin_level relation ‘allowed’ to have direct subareas
of different levels? (e.g. both AL9 and AL10 as subareas of an
AL8) or is the hierarchy to be strictly followed (an AL10
always has to be in an AL9, and basically follow the letter
codes of the NIS-INS for AL9s)?
---
[1] http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=30946
[2] specifically Oombergen:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3395550
_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
--
Joost @
Openstreetmap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/> |
Reddit <https://www.reddit.com/u/joostjakob> | Wordpress
<https://joostschouppe.wordpress.com/>
_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
