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

[maning sambale]

I guess the group agree to most of seav's proposal on tagging
admin_level (unless there are reservations please raise it here).  I
have another question though, how do we then tag municipal waters?  As
per RA 8550:
http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1998/ra_8550_1998.html

" 58. Municipal waters - include not only streams, lakes, inland
bodies of water and tidal waters within the municipality ...  but also
marine waters included between two (2. lines drawn perpendicular to
the general coastline from points where the boundary lines of the
municipality touch the sea at low tide and a third line parallel with
the general coastline including offshore islands and fifteen (15.
kilometers from such coastline. Where two (2. municipalities are so
situated on opposite shores that there is less than thirty (30.
kilometers of marine waters between them, the third line shall be
equally distant from opposite shore of the respective municipalities.
"

I can make a GIS operation to do this if we can add the boundaries of
coastal municipalities in OSM.  But AFAIK,  what we have "on the
ground" politically is not the same as what the law above defines.

Any ideas?  Of course we can leave that issue for the moment and
proceed to adding the municipal boundaries.

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 6:35 PM,  <ian_lopez_1115 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am in favor of the proposed changes, which is more refined than the
> current scheme that is now being implemented. Regarding some places
> mentioned by Eugene, Projects 2-8 are either administered by a similarly
> named barangay (Projects 4, 6, 7 & 8), or by barangays with different names.
> San Francisco del Monte is now (probably) composed of Barangay Del Monte and
> nearby barangays.
>
> In tagging legislative/congressional districts, the tag should be
> boundary=political, per the previous comment that "representatives do not
> "administer" their respctive legislative districts."
>
> --- On Mon, 5/4/09, maning sambale <emmanuel.sambale at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: maning sambale <emmanuel.sambale at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [talk-ph] Revisiting the admin_level values for
> boundary=administrative
> To: "Eugene Alvin Villar" <seav80 at gmail.com>
> Cc: "OSM" <talk-ph at openstreetmap.org>
> Date: Monday, May 4, 2009, 12:18 PM
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk-ph mailing list
> talk-ph at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>
>



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