[Talk-ca] Edmonton / Strathcona boundary limits
James Ewen
ve6srv at gmail.com
Fri Nov 9 22:31:02 GMT 2012
Oops, the original message below was supposed to go to the talk-ca
group but I forgot to re-address the message.
I'm not sure that I understand why we would expect to see 100% of the
Canadian land mass covered by shapes at admin level 6 or any other
admin level. Not all of the country is organized and governed at that
level.
Once the areas that do fall under admin level 6 are defined and
displayed, you'll end up with holes where the cities are, but if you
add cities to the map, the holes get filled.
Now if you were talking about admin levels 8 (city/town/village/hamlet
boundaries) and 10 (neighborhoods), I would suggest that these would
overlap, since the neighborhoods are a subset of the city. Cities in
Alberta are not a subset of a municipal district.
BTW, Pierre thank you very much for your help and guidance thus far.
I'm making headway on adding features that I have long wanted to
ensure were part of the map.
James
VE6SRV
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Pierre Béland <infosbelas-gps at yahoo.fr> wrote:
> James,
>
> For such matters, it is important that contributors assure coordination and
> use the same rules. This is more a OSM technical problem were OSM has to
> take into account the administrative structure of each province or country.
>
> My understanding is that when you build such a hierarchy of boundaries, you
> should cover all the territory at each level. If there were no level 6 for
> Edmonton, there would be a hole at level 6.
>
> When we look at a map of boundaries at level 6, we expect all the territory
> to be covered.
> See
> http://layers.openstreetmap.fr/?zoom=5&lat=52.59638&lon=-118.12528&layers=B00FFFFFFFFFFTFFFFFFFF
>
> If Edmonton was not defined at this level, this would create problems.
>
> There were discussions before that we both are note aware off. Some people
> may also know how contributors have addressed this problem in other
> countries. This is why I suggest that this be discussed ont the talk-ca
> list.
>
> Pierre
>
> ________________________________
> De : James Ewen <ve6srv at gmail.com>
> À : Pierre Béland <infosbelas-gps at yahoo.fr>
> Envoyé le : Vendredi 9 novembre 2012 12h20
> Objet : Edmonton / Strathcona boundary limits
>
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Pierre Béland <infosbelas-gps at yahoo.fr>
> wrote:
>
>> I have duplicated the relation.
>> Now, there are two relations
>> level=6 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2564500
>> level=8 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2563550
>>
>> My understanding is that there should be a relation for each level. We
>> should not leave any hole at level 6 and cover all the province territory.
>> Making a search throug Nominatim, it still works fine.
>>
>> From this point, you should discuss this on the talk-ca list before trying
>> to make any modification.
>
> Okay, what's the story with this concept?
>
> The City of Edmonton is an entity unto itself. It falls under
> admin_level 8 as per the wiki
> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Admin_level) as a city. It is not
> part of any other administrative jurisiction (i.e. part of a county or
> other entity) Admin_level 6 defines the boundaries of counties,
> regional municipalities, improvement districts, etc.
>
> Would not having 2 relations, one that defines the city (admin_level
> 8) and another that defines a non-existent entity (admin_level 6) be
> considered tagging for the renderer (just to fill a perceived hole)?
>
> --
> James
> VE6SRV
>
More information about the Talk-ca
mailing list