[talk-ph] editing admin boundaries of Marikina

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:09 PM, maning sambale <emmanuel.sambale at gmail.com
> wrote:

> > Having the internal boundaries is actually a con. The boundary of
> Marikina
> > is its borders with other entities (like Pasig and Antipolo). The
> internal
> > "boundaries" are more properly boundaries of the barangays, not of
> Marikina
> > itself.
> Not entirely, IMO
> A barangay (which I treat as a single polygon unit) is within a
> municipality (a collection of barangay polygons) which is within a
> province (a collection municipality polygons) with a few exceptions of
> course and so on and so forth.


Ah, now I see where you're coming from.

I agree that the barangays of Marikina are part of Marikina and that
Marikina is part of Metro Manila and so on. But we are talking about
boundaries here (relation type=boundary), i.e., land area perimeters, not
the land area itself. That's why I think that the internal borders shouldn't
be counted.

> In addition, because these internal boundaries are included in the
> relation,
> > they are being drawn as admin_level=6 (per the relation tag) in Mapnik,
>
> This is a rendering problem.
>
> > though the presence of area=yes seems to mess things up.
> I think I removed them in Marikina
>
> let's discuss this more.
>
> PS/OT:
> Incidentally, at work, I'm looking at using the NCSB codes for
> codifying provincial polygons.  Does anybody use this at all?
>

I think we can use the NSCB Philippine Standard Geographic Codes to refer to
the various administrative units. Maybe as ref=* tags? We can also use the
ISO 3166 codes for int_ref=*.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/attachments/20090528/82aeebb3/attachment.html>