[OSM-talk-be] historische kaarten als basis??

[Lennard]

Luc Van den Troost wrote:

> Postcode in Belgium is a bit less sofisticated as in NL. It only mostly
> only has one number for one 'gemeente' or 'deelgemeente'. 
> For Antwerpen - for instance - the (public) official streetname list
> will give for every street what district (postcode) it is in. If a
> street goes trough, or borders several districts/postcodes, or even a
> neighbouring city, it will mention what housenumbers are in what
> district/postcode. 

I wasn't talking about complexity, but about the ownership information 
of the postcode system. Can you take the entire Belgium postcode 
database, and import it into OSM as areas? I would think: probably not.

> Where you go from one village / city to another, on most places the
> streetname will change, and/or you will have a sign with the village
> name on it (here in Belgium we have 2 kind of roadsigns, the 'yellow'
> ones put on the city administrative border, and the 'white' one put on
> the border of the build-up area, and where allso a general speedlimit of
> 50 will be. 

Yes, I'm quite aware of the 2 different signs, and their meaning. That's 
why in denser areas, these municipal border signs could be used to 
create a rough area that shows the extent of the municipalities.

> Look up the wiki about borders.... there is some clarification there. 
> A border has nothing to do with an area. A border is something comon,

Within a country, borders *are* usually (or could be) closed ways, i.e. 
areas. Parts of which could be shared by the border (boundary) of 
neighboring areas (shared nodes).

You're not thinking of abutters as well, are you?

> for instance between Antwerpen (berendrecht) and Beveren (Doel) on the
> other side. 
> Most convenient then (in my opinion) it is tagged as admin_level 8,
> meaning city border. 

As it's done in NL.

> All these other 'functions' of the same line then could be grouped in
> 'relations', (something that goes beyond my competence, but that's as
> far as I understood it. 

Relations are relatively new. Have a look at the BE/NL border and see 3 
overlapping ways at different admin_levels: municipality, province, 
state. I don't know if it's planned to do something with relations for 
those.

> Off course you could tag the individual border points.
> As soon as you have some you can put them together in a border, and more
> detailed points can be entered later. 

That was the concept I described, yes. With more and more of those signs 
entered as nodes into the admin_level=8 area, the more defined it 
becomes. Since there is no official usable data source for these 
borders, and they *are* very interesting for routing software, it makes 
sense to at least start by surveying these for ourselves.

Routing software only really cares about the boundary status where it 
crosses roads, not how the boundary runs along creeks and fields. Those 
last details could be filled in from local knowledge, if known.

> For the build up area you should probably not combine them in a 'border'
> cause they are not. The function of 'area' is meant for this. You could

I don't think I said I would use border for that. If I said border, I 
meant it as a generic concept, not the OSM tag.

> use them for marking an area in the map as 'area=yes' and 'landuse =
> residential' or something like that, have to look it up what the options
> are.  The signs in this case do not always reflect reality and are more
> to be considered as a roadsign - in my opinion - 

Built-up areas in NL are also tagged as area=yes; name=*; 
landuse=residential. Sometimes with boundary=*, sometimes with place=*.

What first prompted me is to map municipal boundaries, not necessarily 
built-up areas proper. You're right, those are road signs, not boundary 
signs.

-- 
Lennard