2016-02-25 12:30 GMT+02:00 Jean-Baptiste Holcroft <[email protected]>: > Do you mean that the city administrative division dont apply in romania or > that it haven't been done yet because of missing source data ?
Don't confuse the city with the village and the administrative divisions (UAT - unitate administrativ teritorială). The administrative division of Romania is as follows: - the country - counties (NUTS level 3) + Municipiul București (the upper one) - municipalities (aka UATs: municipii, orașe, comune and Municipiul București (the lower one)) The following are NOT administrative divisions: - development regions (NUTS level 2) - individual settlements (cities, towns and villages) - these can be administered by any kind of municipality. For big cities, the individual settlement and the administrative division are the same, but this is not a rule. As an example, search for "Calafat" at https://osm.wno-edv-service.de/boundaries/ (can't find a permalink, sorry). As you can see, the administrative boundary includes the city of Calafat, but also a few villages. What we have in OSM are the limits of individual settlements, but not of administrative divisions. There have been talks about importing the administrative divisions, but I guess nobody assumed the task in the end. All the best, Strainu > > Le 25 févr. 2016 10:52, "Strainu" <[email protected]> a écrit : >> >> Hi Juergen, >> >> AFAIK, we actually don't have any administrative limits imported at >> that level. What you see are some village limits, which have 2 >> sources: some very old data from the Ministry of Culture and the >> Corina Land Cover import. Villages are not administrative divisions of >> Romania and the their boundaries are extremely fluid. I see we have >> *some* administrative limits imported, but those appear on the >> Boundaries Map. >> >> Best regards, >> Strainu >> >> 2016-01-17 21:06 GMT+02:00 CheckIn.com <[email protected]>: >> > Hello Romanian OSM-supporters, >> > >> > it seems that the administrative boundaries for Romania are not saved as >> > relations (as in all other countries) but as waypoints. I do not know if >> > there is a reason for this, but it makes managing of Romanian data more >> > difficult. >> > >> > Any chance those waypoints can be changed to relations? If yes, they >> > i.e. >> > also show up in https://osm.wno-edv-service.de/boundaries/ >> > >> > Thanks a million to consider to change those. I wouldn't know how to it >> > myself ... or if there's a good reason for this "error"! If you need a >> > list >> > of such relations we found, just mail me. >> > Cheers - Juergen >> > CheckIn.com >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Talk-ro mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ro >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-ro mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ro > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-ro mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ro > _______________________________________________ Talk-ro mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ro
