[talk-ph] Revisiting the admin_level values for boundary=administrative

Mon Jun 1 02:53:53 BST 2009

Made seav's proposal "official" ;)

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Philippines/Mapping_conventions#Administrative_boundaries

Please expand the wiki especially on proper tagging of boundaries (relations)

cheers,
maning


On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:18 PM, maning sambale
<emmanuel.sambale at gmail.com> wrote:
> Added a your proposal in the mapping conventions page:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Philippines/Mapping_conventions#Administrative_boundaries
>
> I propose we  replace the old scheme, once other people have
> commented/raised their reactions.
>
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar <seav80 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi maning,
>>
>> Actually, I mentioned in my e-mail that I have specifically excluded
>> congressional districts[1] from the discussion since these do not specify
>> administrative boundaries. Aside from the pork barrel, the representatives
>> don't *administer* their territories. I think these should be tagged as
>> boundary=legislative/congressional and not  as boundary=administrative.[2]
>>
>> I've done a bit more research since my initial e-mail and here is my
>> proposed values for admin_level:
>>
>> 2 - National border
>> 3 - Regions
>> 4 - Provinces
>> 5 - Sangguniang Panlalawigan districts (if any)
>> 6 - Cities/Municipalities
>> 7 - Sangguniang Panlungsod/Bayan districts (if any)
>> 8 - Other administrative districts[3] (if any)
>> 9 - Zones (if any)
>> 10 - Barangays
>> 12 - Sitios/Puroks (if any, but only if boundaries are defined)
>>
>> The Sangguniang Lalawigan/Lungsod/Bayan districts are mentioned in Republic
>> Act No. 7887[4]. These districts basically apportion the members of the
>> LGU's Sanggunian. Since the Sanggunian is an administrative entity (it's the
>> one that creates the local laws or ordinances), then it's proper that their
>> districts also be given admin_levels.
>>
>> These proposed values have the proviso that admin_level=3 is *not*
>> automatically an admin_level=4|5 due to the weird nature of Isabela City and
>> the ARMM. (But, as long as all boundaries are grouped into relations, then
>> there should be no problem with interpretations.)
>>
>>
>> Eugene / seav
>>
>> -------------
>> [1] The proper legal term is "legislative district".
>>
>> [2] We can also have boundary=judicial (for the jurisdictions of the
>> Regional and Metropolitan trial courts) and boundary=police (like Manila's
>> Western Police District). Also, Catholic archdioceses and dioceses, anyone
>> (boundary=catholic)? :-)
>>
>> [3] Examples of other non-Sanggunian districts:
>>
>> A. Manila has 6 Sangguniang districts (I to VI) co-terminous with the
>> legislative districts and these are further subdivided into 17 geographical
>> districts: Tondo 1, Tondo 2, Sta. Cruz, Sampaloc, Sta. Mesa, Quiapo,
>> Binondo, San Miguel, San Nicolas, Port Area, Intramuros, Paco, Pandacan,
>> Ermita, Malate, Sta. Ana, and San Andres. These districts are further
>> subdivided into 100 zones. (Tondo 1 and Tondo 2 used to be one district,
>> while San Andres used to be part of Sta. Ana and Sta. Mesa used to be part
>> of Sampaloc.)
>>
>> B. Iloilo City has 6 districts: Arevalo, City Proper, Jaro, La Paz,
>> Mandurriao, and Molo. (Iloilo City has only 1 legislative district.)
>>
>> C. Davao City has 3 Sangguniang districts (1 to 3) co-terminous with the
>> legislative districts and these are further subdivided into 11
>> administrative districts: Poblacion, Talomo, Agdao, Buhangin, Bunawan,
>> Paquibato, Baguio, Calinan, Marilog, Toril, and Tugbok.
>>
>> D. Pasay City has 7 districts (1 to 7) subdivided into 20 zones. (Pasay City
>> has only 1 legislative district.)
>>
>> N.B. Quezon City "districts" like Cubao, Diliman, La Loma, San Francisco del
>> Monte, Projects 2,3,4,5,6,7,8, etc. DO NOT have legally defined borders so
>> they won't have a place in the admin_level scheme.
>>
>> [4] http://www.chanrobles.com/republicacts/republicactno7887.html
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 2:08 PM, maning sambale <emmanuel.sambale at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Eugene and all,
>>>
>>> Are you proposing this scheme for admin_levels?
>>>
>>> (first row is Eugene's proposal as I understand it)
>>> 2 --> 2 - National Border (this is a worldwide convention, so there will
>>> be no
>>> 3 --> 4 - Regions
>>> 4 --> 6 - Provinces
>>> 5 --> Districts?
>>> 6 --> 8 - Cities and municipalities
>>> 8 --> 9 - Barangays and Districts of Manila
>>> 10 --> Zones
>>> 12 --> all sitios/puroks can just simply be place=*)
>>>
>>> The congressional district is very problematic in terms of level in
>>> the hierarchy.  Some congressional districts covers several
>>> municipalities while others in my case, Marikina covers only
>>> barangays.
>>>
>>> I think the most critical that we agreed on is the level for barangay
>>> and cities/municipalities.  The other levels can be aggregated to the
>>> above basic unit.
>>>
>>> What do others think?
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/11/09, Eugene Alvin Villar <seav80 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Hi
>>> >
>>> > Right now, in the mapping conventions page (
>>> >
>>> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Philippines/Mapping_conventions)
>>> > we have the following:
>>> >
>>> > 2 - National Border (this is a worldwide convention, so there will be no
>>> > changing of this value's meaning)
>>> > 4 - Regions
>>> > 6 - Provinces
>>> > 8 - Cities and municipalities
>>> > 9 - Barangays and Districts of Manila
>>> >
>>> > I'd like to re-open the discussion on a few points. It's better we put
>>> > these
>>> > things down pat before adding more barangay borders.
>>> >
>>> > *I. Boundaries of Regions*
>>> >
>>> > Is it useful to *explicitly* indicate the boundaries for regions? If
>>> > not,
>>> > then we can bump up the admin_level for provinces to 4. If anyone really
>>> > wants the regional boundaries, then only a small amount of
>>> > post-processing
>>> > is needed given the provincial boundaries (well, except for that weird
>>> > business with Isabela City and Cotabato City). As an alternative, since
>>> > the
>>> > sort-of convention in OSM is to use the even numbers primarily and
>>> > reserve
>>> > the odd numbers for special cases, then maybe we can have regions as
>>> > admin_level=3 and provinces as admin_level=4. Caveat: while regions are
>>> > generally just groupings of local government units, ARMM *does* have a
>>> > regional government. (And Metro Manila, the region, is somewhat a
>>> > federation
>>> > under the MMDA.)
>>> >
>>> > Here's how we can view regions: normal regions are simply groupings of
>>> > provinces subject to the whim of the President (so that each executive
>>> > department can have regional offices for better rendering and
>>> > localization
>>> > of services). ARMM is a *special* unique region having its own
>>> > autonomous
>>> > government and each city and municipality AFAIK can independently choose
>>> > to
>>> > be part of ARMM, not on a per province basis. This is why Isabela City
>>> > is
>>> > under Basilan, but outside ARMM, even though the rest of Basilan is in
>>> > ARMM.
>>> >
>>> > *II. Hierarchy of Administrative Units*
>>> >
>>> > Here is the *administrative* (i.e., congressional/judicial/police/etc.
>>> > districts are not included) hierarchy in the Philippines:
>>> >
>>> > - Regions* (no government except for ARMM, and quasi-government for
>>> > Metro
>>> > Manila)
>>> > - Provinces (has a government)
>>> > - Cities / municipalities (has a government)
>>> > - Districts** (no executive government; e.g., Malate in Manila and Jaro
>>> > in
>>> > Iloilo City, but not Cubao, a vaguely-defined district, in Quezon City)
>>> > - Zones (no government; cities and municipalities with zones include
>>> > Manila,
>>> > Pasay, Caloocan; zones are just defined groupings of barangays for
>>> > administrative convenience)
>>> > - Barangays (has a government)
>>> > - Sitios / puroks (no government; boundaries are not always defined so
>>> > maybe
>>> > all sitios/puroks can just simply be place=*)
>>> >
>>> > ** Some districts might need to be delineated. For example, Quezon City
>>> > is
>>> > divided into 4 districts (numbered 1-4) and while these correspond
>>> > 1-is-to-1
>>> > with the congressional districts of Quezon City and would not normally
>>> > fall
>>> > under boundary=administrative (maybe,
>>> > boundary=legislative/congressional?),
>>> > each district has its own set of city councilors (which I think means
>>> > that
>>> > each district can have its own set of ordinances, though I'm not sure
>>> > about
>>> > the details). This makes these districts "administrative" in their own
>>> > right
>>> > and might merit their own boundary=administrative tagging.
>>> >
>>> > Which of these do we include and at what values of admin_level?
>>> >
>>> > *III. Highly-urbanized Cities and Independent Component Cities*
>>> >
>>> > How do we handle the case of Highly-urbanized Cities and Independent
>>> > Component Cities? boundary=administrative implies an administration
>>> > delineation of sorts (e.g., the area delineated by the boundaries of
>>> > Rizal
>>> > province is under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Government of
>>> > Rizal).
>>> > HUCs and ICCs are administratively independent of their provinces (save
>>> > from
>>> > unusual exceptions depending on the City Charter, like Mandaue City
>>> > residents being able to vote for Cebu Provincial positions despite being
>>> > an
>>> > HUC). For example, Cebu City is a HUC and so the Cebu Provincial
>>> > Government
>>> > has no legal say over the territory of Cebu CIty (except for the limited
>>> > case of paying costs to Cebu City for "hosting" the Cebu Provincial
>>> > Capitol). (This has resulted in a lot of legal battle between Cebu City
>>> > and
>>> > Cebu Province, like the dispute on who has jurisdiction over Osmena
>>> > Circle
>>> > in Cebu City.)
>>> >
>>> > (See this Wikipedia article section regarding independent cities:
>>> >
>>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cities_of_the_Philippines#Independent_cities )
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Eugene / seav
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> cheers,
>>> maning
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
>>> wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/
>>> blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> talk-ph mailing list
>>> talk-ph at openstreetmap.org
>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> cheers,
> maning
> ------------------------------------------------------
> "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
> wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/
> blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
> ------------------------------------------------------
>


-- 
cheers,
maning
------------------------------------------------------
"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/
blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
------------------------------------------------------