Hi Pierre-Luc,
Thank you for your insights. I was under the impression that the
Communautés métropolitaines had less authority than MRCs, although I
didn't look into it. If it weren't for these "comet"s (as this dataset
is called), there wouldn't be a problem.
However, when looking at the extent of the Communauté métropolitaine
de Québec ([1]), it turns out that it spans multiple regions
(Capitale-Nationale and Chaudière-Appalaches), so it doesn't fit
nicely in the hierarchy. I think it would be better to treat them as a
different entity, and admin_level=6 can be used for the MRCs. The
Montreal "comet" contains municipalities of even more regions
(Montreal, Laval, Montérégie, Laurentides, Lanaudière).
Regarding MRCs vs urban areas: I'll check in the data if that
information can be disseminated. Because they and MRCs are mutually
exclusive, they can have the same admin_level, but their designations
should properly reflect the situation. Wikipedia has an overview of
the agglomerations: [2]. I wonder if this list is really complete, and
I don't think that all of them are MRC equivalents. In Quebec City
there are also the enclaves of Wendake (First Nations) and
Notre-Dame-des-Anges (covering only the Hôpital général de Québec).
Anyways, I'll use the information from the geodata, and not base
anything on Wikipedia.
The borough map of Quebec is already outdated. Things got change on
Nov 1st last year. La Cité and Limoilou have merged, and Laurentides
has been divided over other boroughs. See [3]. Anyways, a minor detail
:)
For the other types of boundaries (electorial districts,
schoolboards), other values for the boundary keys should be used. [4]
For electorial boundaries boundary=political is used
("boundary=electorial" would be better imho).
Regards,
Frank
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communaut%C3%A9_m%C3%A9tropolitaine_de_Qu%C3%A9bec
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_agglomerations_of_Quebec
[3]
http://www.ville.quebec.qc.ca/temp/modifications_arrondissements/index.aspx
[4] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:boundary
Quoting Pierre-Luc Beaudoin <[email protected]>:
> Hi,
>
> Let's start a thread to create an official organization of the
> administrative divisions in regards with the numbering in OSM [1].
>
> Skipping levels higher than 4 (reserved for things greater than Québec).
>
> Here's my first shot based on all the info I could find on the Ministère
> des affaires minicipales, des régions de l'Occupation du territoire
> (gosh they like the long names!) [3]:
>
> Level 4: Provinces and territories
> Level 5: Région administratives / Administrative regions
> (Level 5.5: Here would fit L'Agence métropolitaine de transport, not
> worth mapping)
> Level 6: Communautés métropolitaines / Urbans or metropolitan communities
> Level 7: Municipalités régionales de compté (MRCs)
> (Level 7.5: Here would fit the Conférences régionales des élus of
> Montérégie (which is divided in 3), other CRÉ match their MRC
> boundaries, but I believe this information is not worth of mapping.
> Maps [4]).
> Level 8: Municipalités et villes / Municipalities, Cities
> Level 9: Arrondissements / Boroughs
> Level 10: Quartier / Quarter
>
> This list does not contain federal electoral districts, provincial
> electoral districts, municipal electoral districts, school boards,
> "Régions municipales de recensement" and "Agglomérations de
> recensement" [5] (what are theses?). Should we include all of them?
>
> Now if you look closely at the wiki table, my suggestion doesn't fit
> with the rest of Canada: Québec's MRCs would be one level down compared
> to Ontario. That's because we have 2 levels between the province and
> the cities.
>
> A real life example would be for the place I used to live in Québec
> City:
>
> Level 4: Québec
> Level 5: Capitale-Nationale (ref=03)
> Level 6: Communauté urbaine de Québec
> Level 7 is N/A (Québec is not part of an MRC, being a big city)
> Level 8: Québec
> Level 9: La cité (Map of the borough [2])
> Level 10: Montcalm
>
> I believe it would make sens for all those names show up on a map as
> they are commonly used.
>
> Are there other opinions?
>
> Pierre-Luc
>
> NB: I believe there was a report from the OCDE stating that Montréal was
> being over administrated. I agree :)
>
> [1]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary=administrative
> [2]:
> http://www.ville.quebec.qc.ca/apropos/portrait/arrondissements/lacite/plan.aspx
> [3] http://www.mamrot.gouv.qc.ca
> [4] http://www.mamrot.gouv.qc.ca/publications/cartotheque/CRE.pdf
> [5]
> http://www.mamrot.gouv.qc.ca/publications/cartotheque/atlas_AR_RMR.pdf
>
>
_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
