<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Where I tagged some level 9 <span lang="EN-GB">part-municipalities
I checked the website of the </span><span lang="EN-GB">municipality.
Mostly they have a list of what they consider as their </span><span
lang="EN-GB">part-municipalities.<br>
If they have such a list then it is a better basis for level 9
part-municipalities than the history of fusions. <br>
</span><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Op 30-11-15 om 19:17 schreef joost
schouppe:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAO2_g7J_4Vs8JusUHzkxiKheOBYiMhx_rYOw-5rUtg-rBsLioA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">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.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div>And indeed, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://gent.buurtmonitor.be">gent.buurtmonitor.be</a>
uses basically the same kind if setup Antwerp does.</div>
<div>--</div>
<div>[1] <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://opendata.antwerpen.be/datasets/statistische-sectoren">http://opendata.antwerpen.be/datasets/statistische-sectoren</a></div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2015-11-30 17:25 GMT+01:00 Vincent Van
Eyken <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:vincent.vaneyken@gmail.com" target="_blank">vincent.vaneyken@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="NL-BE">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Thanks for the
feedback. <br>
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? <br>
<br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">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. <br>
<br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">And to digress a
bit on statistical sectors:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">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. <br>
<br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">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. <br>
<br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">I believe Ghent
uses a similar system, though there several
(super-)sectorial boundaries not always match the
pre-1977 municipal ones, I think. <br>
<br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Anyway the
sectors are not yet the issue here.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">---</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="FR">[1] </span><span
lang="EN-GB"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ngi.be/topomapviewer/public"
target="_blank"><span lang="FR">http://www.ngi.be/topomapviewer/public</span></a></span><span
lang="FR"> ; </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ruimtemonitor.be/geoloket/"
target="_blank"><span lang="FR"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ruimtemonitor.be/geoloket/">http://www.ruimtemonitor.be/geoloket/</a></span></a></span><span
lang="FR"> ; etc</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">[2] <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.antwerpen.buurtmonitor.be/"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.antwerpen.buurtmonitor.be/">http://www.antwerpen.buurtmonitor.be/</a></a>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"
lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
name="15159380f8588025__MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"
lang="EN-GB"> </span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="NL">Van:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="NL"> Sander Deryckere [mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:sanderd17@gmail.com" target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:sanderd17@gmail.com">sanderd17@gmail.com</a></a>]
<br>
<b>Verzonden:</b> maandag 30 november 2015 14:09<br>
<b>Aan:</b> OpenStreetMap Belgium <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:talk-be@openstreetmap.org"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:talk-be@openstreetmap.org">talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a></a>><br>
<b>Onderwerp:</b> Re: [OSM-talk-be] Sub-municipal
admin boundary relations</span></p>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:35.4pt">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.</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:35.4pt">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.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:35.4pt">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.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:35.4pt"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:35.4pt">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.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:35.4pt">And,
for all other levels, I fear that it's not
really verifiable, which is a
key-requirement for inclusion in OSM.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:35.4pt">Regards,</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:35.4pt">Sander</p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:35.4pt"> </p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">2015-11-30
13:34 GMT+01:00 Vincent Van Eyken <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:vincent.vaneyken@gmail.com"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:vincent.vaneyken@gmail.com">vincent.vaneyken@gmail.com</a></a>>:</p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid
#cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span
lang="EN-GB">Hi to all</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span
lang="EN-GB">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… </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span
lang="EN-GB">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?) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span
lang="EN-GB">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) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span
lang="EN-GB">Admin_level=8:
municipality <br>
admin_level=9: “part-municipality”;
areas that were a separate
municipality up until 1950-1960 <br>
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 <br>
admin_level=11: smaller split parts of
ex-municipalities, smaller
neighbourhoods (“buurt”), statistical
sectors (NIS-INS)? <br>
or admin_level=12 for statistical
sectors (IF they are to be mapped in
OSM at all)? </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span
lang="EN-GB">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’… </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span
lang="EN-GB">Open questions: <br>
should the whole territory in the end
be divided in admin_level=9 relations?
(what with split ex-municipalities?
And never-merged ones?)<br>
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)?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:35.4pt"><span
lang="EN-GB">---<br>
[1] <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=30946"
target="_blank">http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=30946</a>
<br>
[2] specifically Oombergen: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3395550"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3395550">http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3395550</a></a>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span
lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:35.4pt"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-be mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org"
target="_blank">Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be"
target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</a></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-be mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org">Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div class="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Joost @</div>
<div dir="ltr"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/"
target="_blank">Openstreetmap</a> | <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://twitter.com/joostjakob" target="_blank">Twitter</a> | <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603"
target="_blank">LinkedIn</a> | <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/"
target="_blank">Meetup</a> | <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.reddit.com/u/joostjakob"
target="_blank">Reddit</a> | <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://joostschouppe.wordpress.com/"
target="_blank">Wordpress</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org">Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>