[talk-ph] best practice for village admin_centre relations

Erwin Olario govvin at gmail.com
Thu Jul 2 06:46:20 UTC 2015


Rally, Maning is asking about the administrative centres, and that would
mean government authorities in charge of administration. They are not meant
to represent the [geographic] "center of the village" which isn't something
we normally map.

As for place=village nodes, and like I wrote earlier, I put them in the
commons (e.g. plaza, local park, etc.).

Erwin



*Erwin Olario*
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
» email: erwin@ <erwin at ngnuity.net>*n**gnu**IT**y**.**net*
<http://ngnuity.net/> | govvin at gmail.com
» mobile: (PHL): +63 908 817 2013
» OpenPGP key: 3A93D56B | 5D42 7CCB 8827 9046 1ACB 0B94 63A4 81CE 3A93 D56B

On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Rally de Leon <ralleon at gmail.com> wrote:

> Question:
> - What's the best practice for adding admin_centre nodes to the village
> boundary relation? Should it be the barangay hall (amenity=townhall)
> or the place=village node?
>
> ------------
> For place nodes, a good practice IMHO is putting said node (eg.
> place=village)
> somewhere NEAR but NOT ON an "object or group of objects" which
> represents the center of the village, typically any of the following:
>   -barangay hall
>   -village plaza (eg. where there's a multipurpose hall or basketball
> court)
>   -the center of traditional grid-street (the oldest populated area of the
> place)
>
> My interpretation of "somewhere near" is around 100-150 meters away;
> on a not-so-important space (eg. a vacant area or generic community)
> in the vicinity, where there are no other place nodes, or important
> landmarks
> like a park or institution.
>
> 1st Reason:
> The 'place node' is represented by a TEXT on the map.
> -a rendered TEXT always cover the lines and polygons under it. Thus,
> putting a place_node very close to another object (eg. important
> building),
> will essentially make that building disappear (information visibility is
> not optimized).
> Said buildings  will only appear when you zoom-in on a digital map.
> But you cannot zoom-in on a paper map (2-D). So I thought, the best
> practice
> is to move it just enough not to cover important objects (part of the art).
> (until such time we have an algorithm to do that automatically)
>
> 2nd Reason:
> Putting a place node inside a polygon with a large footprint the size of
> a neighborhood, like an institutional_polygon or a park; will not just
> potentially cover the 'name' of institution or park, but add unintended
> confusion or misrepresentation of the polygon.
> eg. If you put a place_node of Ermita inside Rizal Park's valencia circle,
> a tourist who wants to go to the heart of Ermita, ends up in Luneta
> (which is technically Ermita) - but was not probably his/her intention
>
> 3rd Reason:
> There are some LGU's (municipal and barangays) which relocated (or
> isolated)
> their new townhalls away from the village or town centers.
>
> Putting a place_node on top or near an isolated townhall (away from
> populated center)
> is not always representative of the general location of the village or the
> town.
> (this is a dilemna for Mamasapano, where townhall is located near the
> boundary)
>
> -----------------------
> I'm voting +1 for:
> place=village as admin_centre, provided it's located NEAR not ON the
> object (amenity=townhall)
>
> Cheer,
> Rally
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk-ph mailing list
> talk-ph at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/attachments/20150702/18a438b0/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the talk-ph mailing list