Maning, we have the need to do that at least in Davao because we have
this Disaster Preparedness project here and it includes monitoring of
passenger sea vessels via GPS/SMS?RF going from Davao to Samal so I need
the boundaries. We are using OSM as the base map. That is also the
reason why I am adding now the Barangay boundaries to have some idea to
where the vessel on the map.
Eugene, that information help me a lot so now I would limit the barangay
boundary to 22kms or 30kms from the shoreline.
Thanks for the info guys.
murlwe
<-----Original Message----->
From: maning sambale [emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com]
>Sent: 5/20/2011 12:15:48 PM
>To:
>Cc: mur...@mail2engineer.com;
>Subject: Re: [talk-ph] Admin Boundary and Coastline
>
>On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar
<sea...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> Hi Murlwe,
>>
>> I don't think that municipal/provincial waters should be clamped to
>> the national waters.
>>
>> According to the UNCLOS, national waters are those that are within 12
>> nautical miles (about 22km) from the coastline. According to the
>> Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998, municipal waters are within 15
>> kilometers of the coastline. In addition, there is yet no rule on how
>> to deal with overlapping municipal waters.
>
>According to the Fisheries Code:
>Where two (2) municipalities are so situated on opposite shores that
>there is less than thirty (30) kilometers of marine waters between
>them, the third line shall be equally distant from the opposite shore
>of the respective municipalities.
>
>This can be easily done with a GIS buffer operation, but I don't find
>any real need for osm to do that. You can of course download the osm
>data and create your preferred boundary within a GIS app.
>
>> I couldn't find a law stating anything about provincial waters, but I
>> assume they encompass their municipalities' waters. Same with
barangay
>> waters.
>>
>> So the idea is to mark admin boundaries of barangays,
>> municipalities/cities and provinces as just the land portions for
now.
>> This includes islands.
>This is a touchy issue (politically), so for now, I agree with using
>coastlines as part of the admin boundary. Plus, it is easier to
>maintain the data since when we move the the coastline, the admin
>boundary in relation to the coastline move as well.
>
>Although I have different opinion with "clamping" boundary relations to
rivers.
>
>
>> If the concern is that you want to signify that places/landmarks of
an
>> LGU are within its boundaries in GIS terms, then the GIS app need to
>> support boundaries that are composed of multiple polygons. For
>> example, Caloocan City is composed of 2 disjoint territories
>> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/?relation=273242>. To say that a street
>> or POI is within Caloocan, the GIS app needs to support multiple
>> polygons.
>
>I think postgis can do this.
>
>> Same thing goes currently with LGUs that have islands. The admin
>> boundaries currently include islands as multipolygons. For example,
>> Romblon, whose boundaries are currently clamped to the coastlines of
>> all of its constituent islands:
>> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/?relation=1506343>.
>>
>>
>> Eugene
>>
>> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Marloue Pidor
>> <mur...@mail2engineer.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Eugene, I find it easier if the Barangay boundaries be extendend
to
>the
>>> City/Municipal boundary, City/Municipal boundary be extended to the
>>> Provincial boundary, Provincial boundary to the Country boundary.
This is
>>> just a suggestion for the coastal areas as you said to map out the
exact
>>> municipal and provincial waters. If you notice here,
>>> http://osm.org/go/4sY75GPk-- the admin boundaries are clamped to the
>>> shoreline and creating the same to the island when we can include
those
>>> island to the municipal boundary. I'm suggesting this because on a
GIS
>point
>>> of view, it is easier to look for places when it is placed inside
>>> boundaries.
>>>
>>> murlwe
>>>
>>>
>>> <-----Original Message----->
>>> From: Eugene Alvin Villar [sea...@gmail.com]
>>>>Sent: 5/19/2011 10:13:33 PM
>>>>To: mur...@mail2engineer.com
>>>>Cc:
>>>>Subject: Re: [talk-ph] Admin Boundary and Coastline
>>>>
>>>>There's no real need. The idea is that in the future we would be
able
>>>>to map out the exact municipal and provincial waters. But until
then,
>>>>making the admin boundaries just tackle land for the moment is
>>>>manageable since data is much more readily available.
>>>>
>>>>Please reply if you have other suggestions. :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Marloue Pidor
><mur...@mail2engineer.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>> Is there a need to clamp the admin boundaries to the coastline?
>>>>.
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________________________
>>> Get the Free email that has everyone talking at
http://www.mail2world.com
>>> Unlimited Email Storage - POP3 - Calendar - SMS - Translator - Much
More!
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk-ph mailing list
>> talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>>
>
>
>
>--
>cheers,
>maning
>------------------------------------------------------
>"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
>wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/
>blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
>------------------------------------------------------
>.
>
<span id=m2wTl><p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"
style="font-size:13.5px">_______________________________________________________________<BR>Get
the Free email that has everyone talking at <a href=http://www.mail2world.com
target=new>http://www.mail2world.com</a><br> <font color=#999999>Unlimited
Email Storage – POP3 – Calendar – SMS – Translator –
Much More!</font></font></span>
_______________________________________________
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
