<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 10"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 10"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5Cgign02%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-CA">The contact
I had in the government of Quebec have raised issues on delivering up-to-date
datasets in OSM, such as the Administrative boundaries of Québec (BDGA).<br>
Could someone help this person to understand quickly the advantage for his
organisation to share its data with the OSM community.<br>
Here are some of his reserve :<br>
- He does not want his administration to be wrongly identified as the
contributor if someone of OSM edit his data that has been integrated in OSM;<br>
- He does want an attribution somewhere;<br>
- He does not want someone to call his administration because their is an error
in the data when it was someone of OSM that has edited the data, not his
organisation;<br>
- He is willing to cooperate, but he has issue when users edit his data and his
organisation is wrongly identified has the producer.<br>
<br>
Thanks for your help.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Nicolas</span></p>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2010/1/25 Bégin, Daniel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Daniel.Begin@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca">Daniel.Begin@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi Frank,<br>
<br>
You're asking if the community should wait for that?!!<br>
<br>
I can't answer for you guys but here is some information that might help ...<br>
<br>
Administrative boundaries of Québec is ...<br>
- the result of a generalisation process to 1:1 000 000<br>
- available now!<br>
<br>
The GeoBase Administrative boundaries product will ...<br>
- cover the entire contry.<br>
- not be the result of a generalisation process.<br>
- be available later this year.<br>
- have a boundaries classification similar to the one from Québec.<br>
<br>
Bonne réflexion!<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Daniel<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Frank Steggink [mailto:<a href="mailto:steggink@steggink.org">steggink@steggink.org</a>]<br>
Sent: 22 janvier 2010 23:43<br>
To: Bégin, Daniel<br>
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap<br>
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Administrative boundaries of Québec<br>
<br>
Hi Daniel,<br>
<br>
Great to hear that :) Do you think we are able to wait for that? It might be interesting to pursue to see if the gov't has more interesting stuff available.<br>
<br>
Frank<br>
<br>
Bégin wrote:<br>
> Hi, just a short message concerning administrative boundaries...<br>
><br>
> We are working on it for a while with the provinces. It should be made<br>
> available on GeoBase later this year.<br>
><br>
> Cheers,<br>
><br>
> Daniel<br>
><br>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
> --<br>
> *From:* <a href="mailto:talk-ca-bounces@openstreetmap.org">talk-ca-bounces@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
> [mailto:<a href="mailto:talk-ca-bounces@openstreetmap.org">talk-ca-bounces@openstreetmap.org</a>] *On Behalf Of *Nicolas<br>
> Gignac<br>
> *Sent:* 19 janvier 2010 13:41<br>
> *To:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap<br>
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Administrative boundaries of Québec<br>
><br>
> For electoral boundaries, see these links:<br>
> - Federal levels :<br>
> <a href="http://geogratis.cgdi.gc.ca/geogratis/fr/download/electoral.html" target="_blank">http://geogratis.cgdi.gc.ca/geogratis/fr/download/electoral.html</a><br>
> - Provincial levels :<br>
> <a href="http://www.electionsquebec.qc.ca/francais/provincial/carte-electorale/" target="_blank">http://www.electionsquebec.qc.ca/francais/provincial/carte-electorale/</a><br>
> geometrie-des-circonscriptions-provinciales-du-quebec.php<br>
><br>
> Nicolas<br>
><br>
> 2010/1/19 <<a href="mailto:steggink@steggink.org">steggink@steggink.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:steggink@steggink.org">steggink@steggink.org</a>>><br>
><br>
> Hi Pierre-Luc,<br>
><br>
> Thank you for your insights. I was under the impression that the<br>
> Communautés métropolitaines had less authority than MRCs, although I<br>
> didn't look into it. If it weren't for these "comet"s (as this dataset<br>
> is called), there wouldn't be a problem.<br>
><br>
> However, when looking at the extent of the Communauté métropolitaine<br>
> de Québec ([1]), it turns out that it spans multiple regions<br>
> (Capitale-Nationale and Chaudière-Appalaches), so it doesn't fit<br>
> nicely in the hierarchy. I think it would be better to treat them as a<br>
> different entity, and admin_level=6 can be used for the MRCs. The<br>
> Montreal "comet" contains municipalities of even more regions<br>
> (Montreal, Laval, Montérégie, Laurentides, Lanaudière).<br>
><br>
> Regarding MRCs vs urban areas: I'll check in the data if that<br>
> information can be disseminated. Because they and MRCs are mutually<br>
> exclusive, they can have the same admin_level, but their designations<br>
> should properly reflect the situation. Wikipedia has an overview of<br>
> the agglomerations: [2]. I wonder if this list is really complete, and<br>
> I don't think that all of them are MRC equivalents. In Quebec City<br>
> there are also the enclaves of Wendake (First Nations) and<br>
> Notre-Dame-des-Anges (covering only the Hôpital général de Québec).<br>
> Anyways, I'll use the information from the geodata, and not base<br>
> anything on Wikipedia.<br>
><br>
> The borough map of Quebec is already outdated. Things got change on<br>
> Nov 1st last year. La Cité and Limoilou have merged, and Laurentides<br>
> has been divided over other boroughs. See [3]. Anyways, a minor detail<br>
> :)<br>
><br>
> For the other types of boundaries (electorial districts,<br>
> schoolboards), other values for the boundary keys should be used. [4]<br>
> For electorial boundaries boundary=political is used<br>
> ("boundary=electorial" would be better imho).<br>
><br>
> Regards,<br>
><br>
> Frank<br>
><br>
> [1]<br>
> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communaut%C3%A9_m%C3%A9tropolitaine_de_Qu%C3%A9bec" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communaut%C3%A9_m%C3%A9tropolitaine_de_Qu%C3%A9bec</a><br>
> [2] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_agglomerations_of_Quebec" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_agglomerations_of_Quebec</a><br>
> [3]<br>
> <a href="http://www.ville.quebec.qc.ca/temp/modifications_arrondissements/index.aspx" target="_blank">http://www.ville.quebec.qc.ca/temp/modifications_arrondissements/index.aspx</a><br>
> [4] <a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:boundary" target="_blank">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:boundary</a><br>
><br>
> Quoting Pierre-Luc Beaudoin <<a href="mailto:pierre-luc@pierlux.com">pierre-luc@pierlux.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:pierre-luc@pierlux.com">pierre-luc@pierlux.com</a>>>:<br>
><br>
> > Hi,<br>
> ><br>
> > Let's start a thread to create an official organization of the<br>
> > administrative divisions in regards with the numbering in OSM [1].<br>
> ><br>
> > Skipping levels higher than 4 (reserved for things greater than<br>
> Québec).<br>
> ><br>
> > Here's my first shot based on all the info I could find on the<br>
> Ministère<br>
> > des affaires minicipales, des régions de l'Occupation du territoire<br>
> > (gosh they like the long names!) [3]:<br>
> ><br>
> > Level 4: Provinces and territories<br>
> > Level 5: Région administratives / Administrative regions<br>
> > (Level 5.5: Here would fit L'Agence métropolitaine de transport, not<br>
> > worth mapping)<br>
> > Level 6: Communautés métropolitaines / Urbans or metropolitan<br>
> communities<br>
> > Level 7: Municipalités régionales de compté (MRCs)<br>
> > (Level 7.5: Here would fit the Conférences régionales des élus of<br>
> > Montérégie (which is divided in 3), other CRÉ match their MRC<br>
> > boundaries, but I believe this information is not worth of mapping.<br>
> > Maps [4]).<br>
> > Level 8: Municipalités et villes / Municipalities, Cities<br>
> > Level 9: Arrondissements / Boroughs<br>
> > Level 10: Quartier / Quarter<br>
> ><br>
> > This list does not contain federal electoral districts, provincial<br>
> > electoral districts, municipal electoral districts, school boards,<br>
> > "Régions municipales de recensement" and "Agglomérations de<br>
> > recensement" [5] (what are theses?). Should we include all of them?<br>
> ><br>
> > Now if you look closely at the wiki table, my suggestion doesn't fit<br>
> > with the rest of Canada: Québec's MRCs would be one level down<br>
> compared<br>
> > to Ontario. That's because we have 2 levels between the<br>
> province and<br>
> > the cities.<br>
> ><br>
> > A real life example would be for the place I used to live in Québec<br>
> > City:<br>
> ><br>
> > Level 4: Québec<br>
> > Level 5: Capitale-Nationale (ref=03)<br>
> > Level 6: Communauté urbaine de Québec<br>
> > Level 7 is N/A (Québec is not part of an MRC, being a big city)<br>
> > Level 8: Québec<br>
> > Level 9: La cité (Map of the borough [2])<br>
> > Level 10: Montcalm<br>
> ><br>
> > I believe it would make sens for all those names show up on a map as<br>
> > they are commonly used.<br>
> ><br>
> > Are there other opinions?<br>
> ><br>
> > Pierre-Luc<br>
> ><br>
> > NB: I believe there was a report from the OCDE stating that<br>
> Montréal was<br>
> > being over administrated. I agree :)<br>
> ><br>
> > [1]: <a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary=administrative" target="_blank">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary=administrative</a><br>
> > [2]:<br>
> ><br>
> <a href="http://www.ville.quebec.qc.ca/apropos/portrait/arrondissements/lacite/plan.aspx" target="_blank">http://www.ville.quebec.qc.ca/apropos/portrait/arrondissements/lacite/plan.aspx</a><br>
> > [3] <a href="http://www.mamrot.gouv.qc.ca" target="_blank">http://www.mamrot.gouv.qc.ca</a><br>
> > [4] <a href="http://www.mamrot.gouv.qc.ca/publications/cartotheque/CRE.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.mamrot.gouv.qc.ca/publications/cartotheque/CRE.pdf</a><br>
> > [5]<br>
> ><br>
> <a href="http://www.mamrot.gouv.qc.ca/publications/cartotheque/atlas_AR_RMR.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.mamrot.gouv.qc.ca/publications/cartotheque/atlas_AR_RMR.pdf</a><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Talk-ca mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org">Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org">Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>
> <a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
> --<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Talk-ca mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org">Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-ca mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org">Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>