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

[Sander Deryckere]

IMO, admin levels should nest nicely. That's also why the "gemeenschappen"
are no administrative boundaries, but political ones. They don't match with
the other structures like provinces and arrondissements.

So for Oombergen, there are two possibilities: Split Oombergen in two A9
relations and add them to both municipalities (if the split-off part is
big), or keep only one Oombergen relation in one municipality, and add the
split-off part to a different part-municipality.

Part-municipalities are still used in administration (mostly as part of
addresses, though bPost doesn't prefer them), and they're verifiable (from
historic data). So they fit into OSM.

I can also see where you're going with NIS-INS statistical sectors. They're
verifiable (from a central authority), well-defined, and used in
administration. So if they match the existing boundary definitions, they
could be used for an A10 level. Though I wonder where you'll get the data
from. AFAIK, NIS-INS data is still closed? Also note that not all
boundaries should be administrative. I think adding a boundary=statistical
is not an issue in case the statistical boundaries don't match our current
administrative ones.

And, for all other levels, I fear that it's not really verifiable, which is
a key-requirement for inclusion in OSM.

Regards,
Sander



2015-11-30 13:34 GMT+01:00 Vincent Van Eyken <vincent.vaneyken at gmail.com>:

> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20151130/6218caab/attachment.htm>