[OSM-talk-be] Fixing administrative borders

[Gerard Vanderveken]

Benoit Leseul wrote:

>Hi,
>
>On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:16, Ben Laenen <benlaenen at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>...
>>My main concern is to somehow discern the border of the German language area
>>(after all, it's the only border not at level 4).
>>    
>>
>
>I don't know if it's realistic, but maybe the German language area
>could be the only thing mapped at level 5, the other borders being
>obvious?
>
>If it's not, I stand by my proposition to tag language areas (in the
>constitutional sense) instead of communities.
>
We are not responsible for the choices made by the governement ;-) , we 
map (the mess) as it is.

There is no German region, and thus no boundary at level 4.
There is only the community at level 5 comprising the Muncipalities of 
Amel, Büllingen, Burg-Reuland, Bütgenbach, Eupen, Kelmis, Lontzen, 
Raeren und St.Vith

Because at the governement the regions and communities are on equal 
level and we have choosen in OSM to give them a different level (which I 
support), you can not make assumptions on level 4 areas comprising level 
5 things and vice versa. So the whole discussion with overlaps etc in 
OSM is pointless. Belgium is illogical and complicated and this will 
also show on the mapping.

[Joking]
(If someone is involved in the current governement negociations, maybe 
they can ask for a region and province, etc  for Brussels and the German 
East Kantons too, so we can map this properly at all levels?)
[/Joking]

The language regions should IMHO not be mapped , and certainly not on 
the administrative boundary level.

Regards,
Gerard.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20110613/d0fcdaa8/attachment.htm>