What an interesting Mapathon. A real brainstorm for policy on how to deal with how Neighbourhoods which cross wards will be mapped. Rob Scott showed us how to share ‘ways/relations/boundaries’ by using Overpass Turbo to export the admin levels into JOSM. Sarah Wise and Tom Hills took up the batten, which was not easy. Rob insisted that we work out these ways of tagging ‘Parcels’ of land with shared boundaries, and it was true that although little was inputted, we now have clear strategy. Below is a summary from email correspondence:

Hey Tom and Sarah.

Hope the following fits with what Sarah has down from last night here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Missing_Maps_Epworth_Zimbabwe_Field_Mapping_2015_live

I will double-check once my emails are answered, but please feed back.

Great that you’re getting time to do stuff, Tom. This is indeed the issue that we came up against, and which led to that slightly esoteric venture into Ways, Relations and Boundaries. I am adjusting the levels a bit from yesterday. Also, I think it may be good to let those who want to just tag the houses and leave the boundaries. Better for the newbies like me. I’ll ask for feedback on this, tooo, from the community.

Sometimes, the away to find and address consists in upper levels, sometimes in lower.

In these cases, indeed the whole case of Epworth, we need to ‘live with’ gaps in the Address Chain at certain levels. Sometimes occupied by qualifiers, sometimes blank, because admin levels are not consistent in the addressing system. So let them be pushed and let’s create the space. Rule of thumb is to ‘shunt’ the values up or down to line-up and leave gaps in the value fields which become empty. This would be a true rendering. I think my team-mate Kieran would concur. (I will post and hope for confirmation.) So yes, option 3. Create a new level: ‘subdistrict’.

So the address chain is: Ward=2, Neighbourhood=Makomo(to be tagged in ‘ways/relations’ as ‘Metropole’ level 0), Area=Makomo Extension (to be tagged at ‘Metropole’ Level 1), Subdistrict/Cell= for example ‘M’ - a qualifier for the part of the neighbourhood, which is present on some field papers (to be tagged Met. Level 2) Street/Hamlet (to be tagged at Met.Level 3) - for example ‘=Chinamo’, ‘Parcel’ or Block which is the Proper Name/Number/Identity of the parcel of land. If there is a name, consent has been sought and given, and this is the equivalent of a ‘community head’, to be included in the ‘name’. I will try to link you up with the trello page. Also I will try to post this on there and the HOT mailing list.

Hope this helps.

Rupert

On 17/06/2015 12:56, Thomas Hills wrote: > Hi Rupert, > I hope you’re well. Sorry to pester you so soon after yesterday with questions about Missing Maps! > I don’t have anyone else’s email addresses so if you could pass this around everyone else that would be brilliant. > I’ve had a look at my field papers and there seems to be an overlap between Neighbourhood and Area. Roughly half my papers use Makomo Extension as a neighbourhood (i.e. addr:neighbourhood) and half as an area (i.e. addr:hamlet). > This wouldn’t be such a problem but it then pushes the other designations out of defined categories. > An example: > Our categories are area\neighbourhood\name. > In some papers, I have Makomo\Makomo Ext\name. (e.g. NW M6) > In others, I have Makomo Ext\neighbourhood\name. (e.g. NW M9) > So we need to determine how to work this out. I think there are three options: > 1) Makomo Ext, etc are neighbourhoods. The extra info can be put in as, e.g. “addr:neighbourhood = Makomo Extension/Chinamano.” > 2) Makomo Ext etc are areas. The extra info can be put in as, e.g. “addr:hamlet = Makomo/Makomo Ext” > 3) We create a new level (addr:subdistrict perhaps). Any ‘extensions’ go in here, and this way all info has a category. > I don’t mind which method we use - I don’t use the maps and I’m not an experiences OSMmer so I’d be reticent to give an opinion, > Cheers, > Tom