[Talk-ca] Administrative Boundary

[Paul Norman]

Can you give an example of a municipal regional or upper municipality?
Looking at the global usage, admin_level=5 is seldom used. I would think
that Municipal Regional would be 6 and upper municipality would be 7, but I
can’t really say without examples.

 

I would also suggest that these features in the .osm file not be closed –
just have the boundary, don’t handle it like lakes where you have multiple
areas you need to join where they cross tile bounds.

 

From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:Daniel.Begin at RNCan-NRCan.gc.ca] 
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 1:39 PM
To: talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-ca] Administrative Boundary

 

Bonjour again! 

Available administrative boundary will be included in the next release of
Canvec.osm.  From the wiki, here is the tagging values I'm going to use


Municipal Regional:  boundary=administrative; admin_level=5 
Upper municipality:  boundary=administrative; admin_level=6 
Municipality:        boundary=administrative; admin_level=8 

 <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Admin_level>
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Admin_level (Canada) 

 

Municipality admin_level=8 corresponds to gdf order in ISO standard. 
  
Municipal Regional Area and Upper Municipality (admin_level=5 and 6) are
different from what the ISO standard says (gdf order=6 and 7). Is someone
can confirm that admin_level=5 and 6 is really what is expected?

Thanks again 

Daniel Bégin 
Centre d'information topographique de Sherbrooke 
Topographic Information Center of  Sherbrooke
Ressources Naturelles Canada / Natural Ressources Canada
2144, rue King Ouest, bureau 010
Sherbrooke (Québec) J1J 2E8
(819) 564-5600 ext.242, dbegin at NRCan.gc.ca 





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20120209/de4c95d7/attachment-0001.html>