[talk-ph] Revisiting the admin_level values for boundary=administrative
Rally de Leon
ralleon at gmail.com
Mon Jun 1 10:07:08 BST 2009
what are the tags for sitio/purok and gated community (those unmapped
areas)? we don't have defined boundaries of most of them in our lists yet;
but they need to be tagged particularly those in the rural areas - for
searching purposes (of their general location to aid future mappers)
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 9:53 AM, maning sambale
<emmanuel.sambale at gmail.com>wrote:
> 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/
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk-ph mailing list
> talk-ph at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/attachments/20090601/22181788/attachment.html>
More information about the talk-ph
mailing list