[OSM-talk-be] Sub-municipal admin boundary relations

[Vincent Van Eyken]

Hi to all

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. 

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?) 

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) 

Admin_level=8: municipality 
admin_level=9: "part-municipality"; areas that were a separate municipality
up until 1950-1960 
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 
admin_level=11: smaller split parts of ex-municipalities, smaller
neighbourhoods ("buurt"), statistical sectors (NIS-INS)? 
or admin_level=12 for statistical sectors (IF they are to be mapped in OSM
at all)? 

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'. 

Open questions: 
should the whole territory in the end be divided in admin_level=9 relations?
(what with split ex-municipalities? And never-merged ones?)
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)?

---
[1] http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=30946 
[2] specifically Oombergen: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3395550 



 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20151130/f119d032/attachment.htm>