[Talk-ca] Administrative Boundary

[Bégin, Daniel]

Bonjour,

I'm working on the Canvec.osm - release 10 - conversion process and I'd like to double check an answer I got from Paul concerning administrative boundaries.

Release 10 will contain up to three administrative boundary types where available ...

- Regional
- Upper Municipality
- Municipality

The Osm admin_level tag usually correspond to the gdf_level ISO standard .

In GeoBase product, the value of these boundaries were identified as gdf_level 6,7 and 8 respectively.
In Openstreetmap wiki, the admin_level were set to 5,6 and 8 respectively.

Is the difference between both are caused by a problem with the wiki or a consensus on the community?
If it is a documented consensus, I'll keep the values of the wiki. If not, I'll use the the values from GeoBase.

Comments?

Daniel


________________________________
From: Paul Norman [mailto:penorman at mac.com]
Sent: February 14, 2012 15:09
To: Bégin, Daniel; talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Administrative Boundary

The levels in your initial email

> 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


From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:Daniel.Begin at RNCan-NRCan.gc.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 12:07 PM
To: Paul Norman; talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Administrative Boundary

Hi Paul,
are you saying that I should use ...

ISO value for admin_level (6 & 7 - actually what is used in the GeoBase product), or
what is identified in the wiki (5 & 6) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Admin_level

Question mark!

Daniel



________________________________
From: Paul Norman [mailto:penorman at mac.com]<mailto:[mailto:penorman at mac.com]>
Sent: February 14, 2012 14:57
To: Bégin, Daniel; talk-ca at openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-ca at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Administrative Boundary
>From the wiki, those look consistent with what I've seen locally, although naturally I can't comment about Quebec.

From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:Daniel.Begin at RNCan-NRCan.gc.ca]<mailto:[mailto:Daniel.Begin at RNCan-NRCan.gc.ca]>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 5:54 AM
To: Paul Norman; talk-ca at openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-ca at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Administrative Boundary

Bonjour Norman,

ISO Level 7 (Upper municipality) refers to an administrative area like the County of Peterborough (ON), while the ISO Level 6 (Municipal Regional) refers to an administrative area like Eastern Townships in Québec (a group of county - a level that exist only in Québec)

Regards,
Daniel
________________________________
From: Paul Norman [mailto:penorman at mac.com]<mailto:[mailto:penorman at mac.com]>
Sent: February 9, 2012 17:15
To: Bégin, Daniel; talk-ca at openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-ca at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Administrative Boundary
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]<mailto:[mailto:Daniel.Begin at RNCan-NRCan.gc.ca]>
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 1:39 PM
To: talk-ca at openstreetmap.org<mailto: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 (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<mailto:dbegin at NRCan.gc.ca>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20120319/6d1ba2b9/attachment.html>