[Talk-ca] Administrative boundaries of Québec

Mon Jan 25 20:12:45 GMT 2010

Hi Frank,

You're asking if the community should wait for that?!! 

I can't answer for you guys but here is some information that might help ...

Administrative boundaries of Québec is ...
- the result of a generalisation process to 1:1 000 000
- available now!

The GeoBase Administrative boundaries product will ...
- cover the entire contry.
- not be the result of a generalisation process.
- be available later this year.
- have a boundaries classification similar to the one from Québec.

Bonne réflexion!

Daniel

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Steggink [mailto:steggink at steggink.org] 
Sent: 22 janvier 2010 23:43
To: Bégin, Daniel
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Administrative boundaries of Québec

Hi Daniel,

Great to hear that :) Do you think we are able to wait for that? It might be interesting to pursue to see if the gov't has more interesting stuff available.

Frank

Bégin wrote:
> Hi,  just a short message concerning administrative boundaries...
>  
> We are working on it for a while with the provinces. It should be made 
> available on GeoBase later this year.
>  
> Cheers,
>  
> Daniel
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> *From:* talk-ca-bounces at openstreetmap.org 
> [mailto:talk-ca-bounces at openstreetmap.org] *On Behalf Of *Nicolas 
> Gignac
> *Sent:* 19 janvier 2010 13:41
> *To:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Administrative boundaries of Québec
>
> For electoral boundaries, see these links:
> - Federal levels : 
> http://geogratis.cgdi.gc.ca/geogratis/fr/download/electoral.html
> - Provincial levels : 
> http://www.electionsquebec.qc.ca/francais/provincial/carte-electorale/
> geometrie-des-circonscriptions-provinciales-du-quebec.php
>
> Nicolas
>
> 2010/1/19 <steggink at steggink.org <mailto:steggink at steggink.org>>
>
>     Hi Pierre-Luc,
>
>     Thank you for your insights. I was under the impression that the
>     Communautés métropolitaines had less authority than MRCs, although I
>     didn't look into it. If it weren't for these "comet"s (as this dataset
>     is called), there wouldn't be a problem.
>
>     However, when looking at the extent of the Communauté métropolitaine
>     de Québec ([1]), it turns out that it spans multiple regions
>     (Capitale-Nationale and Chaudière-Appalaches), so it doesn't fit
>     nicely in the hierarchy. I think it would be better to treat them as a
>     different entity, and admin_level=6 can be used for the MRCs. The
>     Montreal "comet" contains municipalities of even more regions
>     (Montreal, Laval, Montérégie, Laurentides, Lanaudière).
>
>     Regarding MRCs vs urban areas: I'll check in the data if that
>     information can be disseminated. Because they and MRCs are mutually
>     exclusive, they can have the same admin_level, but their designations
>     should properly reflect the situation. Wikipedia has an overview of
>     the agglomerations: [2]. I wonder if this list is really complete, and
>     I don't think that all of them are MRC equivalents. In Quebec City
>     there are also the enclaves of Wendake (First Nations) and
>     Notre-Dame-des-Anges (covering only the Hôpital général de Québec).
>     Anyways, I'll use the information from the geodata, and not base
>     anything on Wikipedia.
>
>     The borough map of Quebec is already outdated. Things got change on
>     Nov 1st last year. La Cité and Limoilou have merged, and Laurentides
>     has been divided over other boroughs. See [3]. Anyways, a minor detail
>     :)
>
>     For the other types of boundaries (electorial districts,
>     schoolboards), other values for the boundary keys should be used. [4]
>     For electorial boundaries boundary=political is used
>     ("boundary=electorial" would be better imho).
>
>     Regards,
>
>     Frank
>
>     [1]
>     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communaut%C3%A9_m%C3%A9tropolitaine_de_Qu%C3%A9bec
>     [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_agglomerations_of_Quebec
>     [3]
>     http://www.ville.quebec.qc.ca/temp/modifications_arrondissements/index.aspx
>     [4] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:boundary
>
>     Quoting Pierre-Luc Beaudoin <pierre-luc at pierlux.com
>     <mailto:pierre-luc at pierlux.com>>:
>
>     > Hi,
>     >
>     > Let's start a thread to create an official organization of the
>     > administrative divisions in regards with the numbering in OSM [1].
>     >
>     > Skipping levels higher than 4 (reserved for things greater than
>     Québec).
>     >
>     > Here's my first shot based on all the info I could find on the
>     Ministère
>     > des affaires minicipales, des régions de l'Occupation du territoire
>     > (gosh they like the long names!) [3]:
>     >
>     > Level 4: Provinces and territories
>     > Level 5: Région administratives / Administrative regions
>     > (Level 5.5: Here would fit L'Agence métropolitaine de transport, not
>     >  worth mapping)
>     > Level 6: Communautés métropolitaines / Urbans or metropolitan
>     communities
>     > Level 7: Municipalités régionales de compté (MRCs)
>     > (Level 7.5: Here would fit the Conférences régionales des élus of
>     > Montérégie (which is divided in 3), other CRÉ match their MRC
>     > boundaries, but I believe this information is not worth of mapping.
>     >  Maps [4]).
>     > Level 8: Municipalités et villes / Municipalities, Cities
>     > Level 9: Arrondissements / Boroughs
>     > Level 10: Quartier / Quarter
>     >
>     > This list does not contain federal electoral districts, provincial
>     > electoral districts, municipal electoral districts, school boards,
>     > "Régions municipales de recensement" and "Agglomérations de
>     > recensement" [5] (what are theses?). Should we include all of them?
>     >
>     > Now if you look closely at the wiki table, my suggestion doesn't fit
>     > with the rest of Canada: Québec's MRCs would be one level down
>     compared
>     > to Ontario.  That's because we have 2 levels between the
>     province and
>     > the cities.
>     >
>     > A real life example would be for the place I used to live in Québec
>     > City:
>     >
>     > Level 4: Québec
>     > Level 5: Capitale-Nationale (ref=03)
>     > Level 6: Communauté urbaine de Québec
>     > Level 7 is N/A (Québec is not part of an MRC, being a big city)
>     > Level 8: Québec
>     > Level 9: La cité (Map of the borough [2])
>     > Level 10: Montcalm
>     >
>     > I believe it would make sens for all those names show up on a map as
>     > they are commonly used.
>     >
>     > Are there other opinions?
>     >
>     > Pierre-Luc
>     >
>     > NB: I believe there was a report from the OCDE stating that
>     Montréal was
>     > being over administrated.  I agree :)
>     >
>     > [1]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary=administrative
>     > [2]:
>     >
>     http://www.ville.quebec.qc.ca/apropos/portrait/arrondissements/lacite/plan.aspx
>     > [3] http://www.mamrot.gouv.qc.ca
>     > [4] http://www.mamrot.gouv.qc.ca/publications/cartotheque/CRE.pdf
>     > [5]
>     >
>     http://www.mamrot.gouv.qc.ca/publications/cartotheque/atlas_AR_RMR.pdf
>     >
>     >
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Talk-ca mailing list
>     Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org>
>     http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>   