Changeset: 106298322
Eliminação das relações de ilhas como áreas administrativas.
Closed by AntMadeira
Tags
created_by | JOSM/1.5 (17429 pt) |
---|
Discussion
-
Comment from Pikse
Why these relations were removed? Link to discussion or some further background in edit comment would have been nice.
As far as I can see these territorial entities are verifiable using INE data, and they include smaller islands neighbouring the main island, i.e they have different extent than relations of individual islands.
-
Comment from AntMadeira
Hi, Pikse.
You can check the approved proposal here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Portugal/Propostas/Localidades_e_limites_administrativosRegards.
-
Comment from Pikse
Regretfully I'm Google translating this proposal. Do I get this right that per this page relations were removed as they weren't for administrative entities and also because place=island relations exist as well? I still don't quite get why is that as at the same time some other non-administrative entities were chnaged to boundary=statistical and, as already pointed out above, place=island relations are for individual islands while removed relations per INE data were for island groups (main island + neighbouring islets).
-
Comment from AntMadeira
Yes, you got it right.
Non-admin relations were removed, since they're redundant with the islands' limits, which are natural=coastline + place=island, not admin.
About boundary=statistical, they were not official admin boundaries, but statistical ones (NUTS), so they were also changed, like in the mainland.Regards,
António. -
Comment from Pikse
Well, as said, it isn't true that "they're redundant with the islands' limits". The limits in fact are different, and as far I can see data was simply lost. This can be checked from [1]. Maideira as a statistical territory in addition to Madeira island includes e.g. Ilhas Selvagens and Ilhas Desertas. Porto Santo as a statistical territory in addition to Porto Santo island includes several neighbouring islets, e.g. Ilhéu da Cal, to name the largest one. Other deleted relations also included several islets in addition to the main island.
I see that briefly before deleting these relations you changed them to boundary=statistical, which made sense if they aren't administrative areas. I understand that they aren't NUTS entities, but nonetheless are also official and verifiable statistical entities by the INE.
[1] https://www.dgterritorio.gov.pt/cartografia/cartografia-tematica/caop
-
Comment from AntMadeira
All necessary boundaries still exist as official and verifiable boundaries.
The CAOP boundaries (official from the link you posted above) are still in place as admin_level=4:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1629145The Madeira island is still in place:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1715038And then you have all admin_level=7 and admin_level=8 in place (also from CAOP).
You can argue that the statistical boundaries NUTS I, NUTS II and NUTS III [1] are missing, but those boundaries corresponds to the exact relation as the archipelago. I confess I don't remember what was decided or why I did that at the time, but maybe that information can be appended to the archipelago's relation, instead of creating and/or restoring the previous one, which is the same.
[1] - https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUTS_de_Portugal#C%C3%B3digos_NUTS
-
Comment from AntMadeira
I remember now why: you can see that both Açores and Madeira relations already have the NUTS information as ref:nuts=*
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1629146
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1629145
- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NUTS_and_LAU#Tagging -
Comment from Pikse
You now refer to relations of autonomous regions that actually also have different extent than the ones that you deleted. Per CAOP boundaries linked above the autonomous region of Madeira consists of two ilhas: Ilha da Madeira (Madeira, the individual island + Ilhas Selvagens + Ilhas Desertas + neighbouring islets), and Ilha de Porto Santo (Porto Santo, the individual island + Ilhéu da Cal + neighbouring islets) . Relations in extent of the latter two statistical entities are currently missing. Similarly, relations for individual islands of Açores are still there, but deleted relations were neither for individual islands nor the entire autonomous region (nor admin_level=7 nor admin_level=8).
No, I'm not argueing that NUTS boundaries are missing. These deleted entitites are not part of NUTS, but are used by INE (note that they all also had ine:code=* tags with unique values).
-
Comment from Pikse
The confusing naming of these 11 statistical territories (ilha) probably contributes to this issue. They are all named after invividual islands, e.g. "Ilha da Madeira", but are in fact not individual islands as outlined above. A couple of months ago, when I fixed some inconsistencies related to tagging and membership of these relations, it took me a little while, too, to figure out the difference between individual islands and corresponding statistical territories.
-
Comment from AntMadeira
Ok, I now realized what you're saying about individual islands/islets vs. admin boundaries.
I didn't see that the admin_level=4 were missing the subareas from the old admin_level=5. That must be corrected in all islands/islets of the archipelagos.As I see it (and I'm also trying to understand this conundrum), INE data is not admin nor statistical, is census data. That's the approach we have on the mainland, where all admin_level=10 (which were based on INE data) are going to be changed to boundary=census, since they're not admin boundaries.
I think that's why there's a difference between Ilhéu de Cima [1] and Ilhéu da Rocha do Navio [2]. Maybe because the first has population and the second doesn't.
If you think that INE codes are important for the individual islands (as defined by INE polygons), maybe it would be ok to add those to the island/islet polygon.In short, the Açores and Madeira have the following boundaries:
admin_level=2 - national
admin_level=4 - autonomous region
admin_level=7 - municipal
admin_level=8 - parishThe only statistical data (NUTS) corresponds to admin_level=4, so it can be added to those relations.
Given this, please explain better which boundaries are missing or wrongly deleted.
[1] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/121718318
[2] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9897330 -
Comment from Pikse
I think above I already explained quite thoroughly in what way the limits of deleted relations and remaining ones are different. But alright, to put it differently, in case of Madeira, there are are/were three relations, all having different members:
1) https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1629145 – autonomous region, includes Madeira, Porto Santo and neighbouring islands
2) https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8421421 [deleted] – ilha (INE statistical territory), includes Madeira and neighbouring islets, *excludes* Porto Santo
3) https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1715038 – individual island, includes *only* the main island, excludes neighbouring isletsYou might as well simply preview the deleted relation in JOSM (or undelete it) to see what it was, and compare it visually to other relations to see the difference.
As these INE statistical territories (ilhas) are not individual islands, then it would be inaccurate to add INE codes to relations of individual islands.
It doesn't matter a lot to me if it's boundary=statistical or boundary=census, as far as the data itself is accurate. Though, I'm not sure I get the distinction. Census data after all is statistical data, too, isn't it? Also, it doesn't look like statistical territories in question are used only for census, e.g. see [1].
As for the relation of Ilhéu de Cima, it seems simply erroneous, and admin_level=*, border_type=* and boundary=* probably can be removed from it.
-
Comment from AntMadeira
"As these INE statistical territories (ilhas) are not individual islands, then it would be inaccurate to add INE codes to relations of individual islands."
Ok, I've understood the difference you're talking about and I was able to see it via OSMCha.
Do you have a link to the data from INE that corresponds to those deleted relations?
-
Comment from Pikse
As far as I can see ilhas listed in INE table on consumption of natural gas, that I linked in last comment, correspond to deleted relations. If you download this table in Excel format, then the same INE codes for each ilha are also shown. Extent (boundaries) of these statistical territories can be verified using CAOP data, where exactly the same territories are given in "Ilha" column in attribute data, as pointed out above.
-
Comment from Pikse
So, there isn't a particular reason why relations for these 11 verifiable areas, that are not represented by other existing relations, shouldn't exist, and we should restore them, right?
Given relations already referenced INE and CAOP, so earlier I was able to figure out why they differ from other relations. If it should be more clear, then any suggestions what changes would be necessary?
-
Comment from AntMadeira
Sorry, I haven't had the time to look in to this in the last days.
The bottom line is relations that were in place and deleted by me weren't admin relations. If you think they're useful in some other way based on INE website, please, restore them and edit them accordingly.
Regards,
António.
Relations (11)
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |