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

Erik B ebe050 at gmail.com
Mon Nov 30 22:20:59 UTC 2015


Where I tagged some level 9 part-municipalities I checked the website of 
the municipality. Mostly they have a list of what they consider as their 
part-municipalities.
If they have such a list then it is a better basis for level 9 
part-municipalities than the history of fusions.

Op 30-11-15 om 19:17 schreef joost schouppe:
> Interesting discussion. I wonder if there is an official dataset of 
> "deelgemeenten" out there. They still exist very much in the minds of 
> people, often being used in adresses for instance. So I do think they 
> belong in OSM. A clustered dataset of statistical sectors might help, 
> if ever that becomes open data.
>
> For the one-to-many relationships of these "deelgemeenten", I wonder 
> how locals percieve them. To stick to the Antwerp example, do the 
> people of the former Ekeren municipality that now belongs to Kappelen 
> consider themselves somehow still as Ekeren? I would suggest only 
> mapping one-on-one relations (the cases before the "or"), and leave 
> the more complicated ones out for the moment. Then investigate whether 
> or not they exist in the heads of people.
>
> As for the statistical sectors, I don't see much use of adding them 
> OSM. At the city of Antwerp, we actually release "ours" as open data 
> [1], so, for example users of the mentioned Buurtmonitor might take 
> the data elsewhere and make their own maps. Makes me wonder if we 
> actually own the data enough to do that.
> And indeed, gent.buurtmonitor.be <http://gent.buurtmonitor.be> uses 
> basically the same kind if setup Antwerp does.
> --
> [1] http://opendata.antwerpen.be/datasets/statistische-sectoren
>
> 2015-11-30 17:25 GMT+01:00 Vincent Van Eyken 
> <vincent.vaneyken at gmail.com <mailto:vincent.vaneyken at gmail.com>>:
>
>     Thanks for the feedback.
>     I understand the argument for neatly nested relations, and I
>     agree, it should be that straightforward. So, the existing
>     anomalies should be fixed. But it’s the “or” part of the solution
>     that still poses a problem then: putting a less-significant area
>     on the same level (9) as complete part-municipalities or annexing
>     it as A10 to the nearest A9 to which it never really belonged.
>     What criteria to use?
>
>     And is there (should there be?) any ‘good’ way to still link
>     ‘orphaned’ and split-off areas to their pre-1977 configuration,
>     since a boundary relation (like the one created for Oombergen),
>     though historically verifiable, does not correspond to any current
>     administrative (or other) reality.
>
>     And to digress a bit on statistical sectors:
>
>     I just took them as an example, since they are the smallest
>     well-defined entities, and can be viewed by the public in several
>     applications. [1] Indeed, they are not available as open data yet
>     (and won’t be soon, I guess?) and I’m certainly not suggesting an
>     illegal import. But if they are ever to be imported or mapped, I
>     would suggest admin_level 11 or 12, leaving room for distinct
>     parts of part-municipalities that tare larger than sectors. Or
>     indeed dump the admin part and just use boundary=statistical,
>     since they are essentially just that.
>
>     E.g. the Stad Antwerpen administration is clearly making use of
>     the sectors [2], calling them “buurten”. Clusters of sectors are
>     called “wijken”, which in their turn are grouped together into the
>     “districten”. Translated into admin_levels this would give: buurt
>     (11) < wijk (10) < district (9). Note however: District
>     Berendrecht-Zandvliet-Lillo only contains the “wijk” Polder + an
>     uninhabited port/industrial area, but was never a municipality in
>     itself, as it is the merger of 3 pre-1958 municipalities, that are
>     still more easily distinguishable than many “wijken” of the more
>     urbanized districts.
>
>     I believe Ghent uses a similar system, though there several
>     (super-)sectorial boundaries not always match the pre-1977
>     municipal ones, I think.
>
>     Anyway the sectors are not yet the issue here.
>
>     ---
>
>     [1] http://www.ngi.be/topomapviewer/public;
>     http://www.ruimtemonitor.be/geoloket/; etc
>
>     [2] http://www.antwerpen.buurtmonitor.be/
>
>     *Van:*Sander Deryckere [mailto:sanderd17 at gmail.com
>     <mailto:sanderd17 at gmail.com>]
>     *Verzonden:* maandag 30 november 2015 14:09
>     *Aan:* OpenStreetMap Belgium <talk-be at openstreetmap.org
>     <mailto:talk-be at openstreetmap.org>>
>     *Onderwerp:* Re: [OSM-talk-be] Sub-municipal admin boundary relations
>
>     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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Talk-be at openstreetmap.org>
>         https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Talk-be mailing list
>     Talk-be at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Joost @
> Openstreetmap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> | 
> Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn 
> <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup 
> <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/> | 
> Reddit <https://www.reddit.com/u/joostjakob> | Wordpress 
> <https://joostschouppe.wordpress.com/>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/f8574ecb/attachment.htm>


More information about the Talk-be mailing list