[Imports] Japan, KSJ2 municipality administrative boundary re-import

Sarah Hoffmann lonvia at denofr.de
Mon May 12 12:03:49 UTC 2014


On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 09:44:55AM +0900, Satoshi IIDA wrote:
> > place=county instead of place=district
> This is reasonable & possible.
> But, as I'm not a native speaker, I could not understand the correct nuance
> of 2 words. :)
> Is County a better word to represent that "A municipality unit which is
> larger than City/Town/Village, and smaller than State/Province"?

Yes, place=county fits that description.

place=district is a rare tag, only 105 uses so far, see
It look s like it is used mostly for city districts or

> > place=state instead of place=province
> Hence, I think this is not...
> There are some arguments to change "Prefecture" system to "State" system in
> Japan politics.
> (yes, it would take long years indeed...)
> If this change would be applied even as partially, we could not keep a way
> to represent the new systems.
> So I'm reserving "admin_level=3" bit to represent "state" level.
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ApY7X6fw8sqxdDNjY1FBeG00TlRZSFoxU2xwOHVCb0E#gid=1
> In fact, "都道府県" level (like Tokyo, Chiba or so) is so called "prefecture"
> in Japan.
> And I think this is a similar structure to "province".
> What is your opinion?

I see, thanks for explaining that. If you need to keep 
place=state reserved then it makes sense to stay with

Another small point about adding the place nodes to the
boundary relations: using the mebmer role 'label' might
be more appropriate for most cases. The 'admin_centre' 
role should be used for the city/town/etc. where the 
government for the administrative unit resides, see



More information about the Imports mailing list