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

maning sambale emmanuel.sambale at gmail.com
Mon May 4 05:18:58 BST 2009


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/
------------------------------------------------------




More information about the talk-ph mailing list