Jonas seems to be AWOL after preparing everything, so in his place:
As every year there are a number of municipality mergers and other changes that we need to do.
The list is here https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Switzerland/2021_Municipality_Mergers
There are 20 actions required per 1.1.2021 (there are some listed for later in the year), so quite a bit more than the last couple of years.
If you want to work on one, please note it in the list before you start working so there is no concurrent and unnecessary editing.
Simon
Hi Simon
When a municipality is extend we have only the historic boundarys from the disappearing municipality but not from the extended one. And will you suggest to remain the historic ones at all?
Peter
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 01.01.2021 um 12:43 schrieb Simon Poole simon@poole.ch:
Jonas seems to be AWOL after preparing everything, so in his place:
As every year there are a number of municipality mergers and other changes that we need to do.
The list is here https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Switzerland/2021_Municipality_Mergers
There are 20 actions required per 1.1.2021 (there are some listed for later in the year), so quite a bit more than the last couple of years.
If you want to work on one, please note it in the list before you start working so there is no concurrent and unnecessary editing.
Simon
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
This is a slightly controversial topic: with some rare exceptions municipalities that are merged in to an existing one simply go away legally. Some contributors have retained these with admin_level=9 in the past, but that, as said, typically doesn't reflect reality. What should really be checked if there is a, independent from the original municipality, place object so that it still can be found.
Simon
Am 01.01.2021 um 15:32 schrieb Peter Berger:
Hi Simon
When a municipality is extend we have only the historic boundarys from the disappearing municipality but not from the extended one. And will you suggest to remain the historic ones at all?
Peter
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 01.01.2021 um 12:43 schrieb Simon Poole simon@poole.ch:
Jonas seems to be AWOL after preparing everything, so in his place:
As every year there are a number of municipality mergers and other changes that we need to do.
The list is here https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Switzerland/2021_Municipality_Mergers
There are 20 actions required per 1.1.2021 (there are some listed for later in the year), so quite a bit more than the last couple of years.
If you want to work on one, please note it in the list before you start working so there is no concurrent and unnecessary editing.
Simon
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
On Fri, Jan 01, 2021 at 08:04:59PM +0100, Simon Poole wrote:
This is a slightly controversial topic: with some rare exceptions municipalities that are merged in to an existing one simply go away legally. Some contributors have retained these with admin_level=9 in the past, but that, as said, typically doesn't reflect reality. What should really be checked if there is a, independent from the original municipality, place object so that it still can be found.
Retaining the area as a place area (possibly in addition to an already existing place node) would be certainly useful from a geocoding perspective. They retain a bit more information about the exact extent of the formerly independet villages. I presume that that area is usually somehow also locally known and accepted as 'belonging to that village'.
Sarah
Simon
Am 01.01.2021 um 15:32 schrieb Peter Berger:
Hi Simon
When a municipality is extend we have only the historic boundarys from the disappearing municipality but not from the extended one. And will you suggest to remain the historic ones at all?
Peter
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 01.01.2021 um 12:43 schrieb Simon Poole simon@poole.ch:
Jonas seems to be AWOL after preparing everything, so in his place:
As every year there are a number of municipality mergers and other changes that we need to do.
The list is here https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Switzerland/2021_Municipality_Mergers
There are 20 actions required per 1.1.2021 (there are some listed for later in the year), so quite a bit more than the last couple of years.
If you want to work on one, please note it in the list before you start working so there is no concurrent and unnecessary editing.
Simon
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
Am 01.01.2021 um 20:17 schrieb Sarah Hoffmann:
On Fri, Jan 01, 2021 at 08:04:59PM +0100, Simon Poole wrote:
This is a slightly controversial topic: with some rare exceptions municipalities that are merged in to an existing one simply go away legally. Some contributors have retained these with admin_level=9 in the past, but that, as said, typically doesn't reflect reality. What should really be checked if there is a, independent from the original municipality, place object so that it still can be found.
Retaining the area as a place area (possibly in addition to an already existing place node) would be certainly useful from a geocoding perspective. They retain a bit more information about the exact extent of the formerly independet villages. I presume that that area is usually somehow also locally known and accepted as 'belonging to that village'.
Sarah
But that is naturally the issue: the area of the former municipality typlically has little, to nothing, to do with the "place" even in existing municipalities. Using the old municipality borders as a proxy for this would seem to be wrong, so wrong that not even swisstopo does it. So, yes, if we had an agreed on scheme for mapping place areas + a place node, then yes that would be a solution (we could for example create a MP of the relevant residential, commercial and industrial areas belonging to a place), but we don't.
Simon
Simon
Am 01.01.2021 um 15:32 schrieb Peter Berger:
Hi Simon
When a municipality is extend we have only the historic boundarys from the disappearing municipality but not from the extended one. And will you suggest to remain the historic ones at all?
Peter
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 01.01.2021 um 12:43 schrieb Simon Poole simon@poole.ch:
Jonas seems to be AWOL after preparing everything, so in his place:
As every year there are a number of municipality mergers and other changes that we need to do.
The list is here https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Switzerland/2021_Municipality_Mergers
There are 20 actions required per 1.1.2021 (there are some listed for later in the year), so quite a bit more than the last couple of years.
If you want to work on one, please note it in the list before you start working so there is no concurrent and unnecessary editing.
Simon
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
For me is unclear how to perform now. And maybe for some others too:
Have a look in https://overpass-turbo.eu/: /* This has been generated by the overpass-turbo wizard. The original search was: “boundary=historic & swisstopo:BFS_NUMMER=*” */ [out:json][timeout:25]; // gather results ( // query part for: “boundary=historic and "swisstopo:BFS_NUMMER"=*” node["boundary"="historic"]["swisstopo:BFS_NUMMER"]({{bbox}}); way["boundary"="historic"]["swisstopo:BFS_NUMMER"]({{bbox}}); relation["boundary"="historic"]["swisstopo:BFS_NUMMER"]({{bbox}}); ); // print results out body;
;
out skel qt;
What should I, we do, leave it or delete it?
Regards
Peter
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: talk-ch talk-ch-bounces@openstreetmap.ch Im Auftrag von Simon Poole Gesendet: Freitag, 1. Januar 2021 21:16 An: talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch Betreff: Re: [talk-ch] 2021 municipality mergers
Am 01.01.2021 um 20:17 schrieb Sarah Hoffmann:
On Fri, Jan 01, 2021 at 08:04:59PM +0100, Simon Poole wrote:
This is a slightly controversial topic: with some rare exceptions municipalities that are merged in to an existing one simply go away legally. Some contributors have retained these with admin_level=9 in the past, but that, as said, typically doesn't reflect reality. What should really be checked if there is a, independent from the original municipality, place object so that it still can be found.
Retaining the area as a place area (possibly in addition to an already existing place node) would be certainly useful from a geocoding perspective. They retain a bit more information about the exact extent of the formerly independet villages. I presume that that area is usually somehow also locally known and accepted as 'belonging to that village'.
Sarah
But that is naturally the issue: the area of the former municipality typlically has little, to nothing, to do with the "place" even in existing municipalities. Using the old municipality borders as a proxy for this would seem to be wrong, so wrong that not even swisstopo does it. So, yes, if we had an agreed on scheme for mapping place areas + a place node, then yes that would be a solution (we could for example create a MP of the relevant residential, commercial and industrial areas belonging to a place), but we don't.
Simon
Simon
Am 01.01.2021 um 15:32 schrieb Peter Berger:
Hi Simon
When a municipality is extend we have only the historic boundarys from the disappearing municipality but not from the extended one. And will you suggest to remain the historic ones at all?
Peter
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 01.01.2021 um 12:43 schrieb Simon Poole simon@poole.ch:
Jonas seems to be AWOL after preparing everything, so in his place:
As every year there are a number of municipality mergers and other changes that we need to do.
The list is here https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Switzerland/2021_Municipality_M ergers
There are 20 actions required per 1.1.2021 (there are some listed for later in the year), so quite a bit more than the last couple of years.
If you want to work on one, please note it in the list before you start working so there is no concurrent and unnecessary editing.
Simon
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
I'll be removing all the *=historic ones I created, essentially level them in place for a couple of days is just a precaution to make things easier if we screwed up somewhere.
Simon
Am 02.01.2021 um 00:13 schrieb peter.berger@bluewin.ch:
For me is unclear how to perform now. And maybe for some others too:
Have a look in https://overpass-turbo.eu/: /* This has been generated by the overpass-turbo wizard. The original search was: “boundary=historic & swisstopo:BFS_NUMMER=*” */ [out:json][timeout:25]; // gather results ( // query part for: “boundary=historic and "swisstopo:BFS_NUMMER"=*” node["boundary"="historic"]["swisstopo:BFS_NUMMER"]({{bbox}}); way["boundary"="historic"]["swisstopo:BFS_NUMMER"]({{bbox}}); relation["boundary"="historic"]["swisstopo:BFS_NUMMER"]({{bbox}}); ); // print results out body;
;
out skel qt;
What should I, we do, leave it or delete it?
Regards
Peter
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: talk-ch talk-ch-bounces@openstreetmap.ch Im Auftrag von Simon Poole Gesendet: Freitag, 1. Januar 2021 21:16 An: talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch Betreff: Re: [talk-ch] 2021 municipality mergers
Am 01.01.2021 um 20:17 schrieb Sarah Hoffmann:
On Fri, Jan 01, 2021 at 08:04:59PM +0100, Simon Poole wrote:
This is a slightly controversial topic: with some rare exceptions municipalities that are merged in to an existing one simply go away legally. Some contributors have retained these with admin_level=9 in the past, but that, as said, typically doesn't reflect reality. What should really be checked if there is a, independent from the original municipality, place object so that it still can be found.
Retaining the area as a place area (possibly in addition to an already existing place node) would be certainly useful from a geocoding perspective. They retain a bit more information about the exact extent of the formerly independet villages. I presume that that area is usually somehow also locally known and accepted as 'belonging to that village'.
Sarah
But that is naturally the issue: the area of the former municipality typlically has little, to nothing, to do with the "place" even in existing municipalities. Using the old municipality borders as a proxy for this would seem to be wrong, so wrong that not even swisstopo does it. So, yes, if we had an agreed on scheme for mapping place areas + a place node, then yes that would be a solution (we could for example create a MP of the relevant residential, commercial and industrial areas belonging to a place), but we don't.
Simon
Simon
Am 01.01.2021 um 15:32 schrieb Peter Berger:
Hi Simon
When a municipality is extend we have only the historic boundarys from the disappearing municipality but not from the extended one. And will you suggest to remain the historic ones at all?
Peter
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 01.01.2021 um 12:43 schrieb Simon Poole simon@poole.ch:
Jonas seems to be AWOL after preparing everything, so in his place:
As every year there are a number of municipality mergers and other changes that we need to do.
The list is here https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Switzerland/2021_Municipality_M ergers
There are 20 actions required per 1.1.2021 (there are some listed for later in the year), so quite a bit more than the last couple of years.
If you want to work on one, please note it in the list before you start working so there is no concurrent and unnecessary editing.
Simon
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
Hi
Starting 2021 we updated some changes based on merged municipalities.
Working on other issues I identified that there are old remaining things of past adoptions.
Run this over Switzerland: /* This has been generated by the overpass-turbo wizard. The original search was: “old_boundary=*” */ [out:json][timeout:25]; // gather results ( // query part for: “old_boundary=*” node["old_boundary"]({{bbox}}); way["old_boundary"]({{bbox}}); relation["old_boundary"]({{bbox}}); ); // print results out body;
;
out skel qt;
What should be done with this historical stuff?
Cheers
Peter
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: talk-ch talk-ch-bounces@openstreetmap.ch Im Auftrag von Simon Poole Gesendet: Samstag, 2. Januar 2021 13:22 An: talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch Betreff: Re: [talk-ch] 2021 municipality mergers
I'll be removing all the *=historic ones I created, essentially level them in place for a couple of days is just a precaution to make things easier if we screwed up somewhere.
Simon
Am 02.01.2021 um 00:13 schrieb peter.berger@bluewin.ch:
For me is unclear how to perform now. And maybe for some others too:
Have a look in https://overpass-turbo.eu/: /* This has been generated by the overpass-turbo wizard. The original search was: “boundary=historic & swisstopo:BFS_NUMMER=*” */ [out:json][timeout:25]; // gather results ( // query part for: “boundary=historic and "swisstopo:BFS_NUMMER"=*” node["boundary"="historic"]["swisstopo:BFS_NUMMER"]({{bbox}}); way["boundary"="historic"]["swisstopo:BFS_NUMMER"]({{bbox}}); relation["boundary"="historic"]["swisstopo:BFS_NUMMER"]({{bbox}}); ); // print results out body;
;
out skel qt;
What should I, we do, leave it or delete it?
Regards
Peter
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: talk-ch talk-ch-bounces@openstreetmap.ch Im Auftrag von Simon Poole Gesendet: Freitag, 1. Januar 2021 21:16 An: talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch Betreff: Re: [talk-ch] 2021 municipality mergers
Am 01.01.2021 um 20:17 schrieb Sarah Hoffmann:
On Fri, Jan 01, 2021 at 08:04:59PM +0100, Simon Poole wrote:
This is a slightly controversial topic: with some rare exceptions municipalities that are merged in to an existing one simply go away legally. Some contributors have retained these with admin_level=9 in the past, but that, as said, typically doesn't reflect reality. What should really be checked if there is a, independent from the original municipality, place object so that it still can be found.
Retaining the area as a place area (possibly in addition to an already existing place node) would be certainly useful from a geocoding perspective. They retain a bit more information about the exact extent of the formerly independet villages. I presume that that area is usually somehow also locally known and accepted as 'belonging to that village'.
Sarah
But that is naturally the issue: the area of the former municipality typlically has little, to nothing, to do with the "place" even in existing municipalities. Using the old municipality borders as a proxy for this would seem to be wrong, so wrong that not even swisstopo does it. So, yes, if we had an agreed on scheme for mapping place areas + a place node, then yes that would be a solution (we could for example create a MP of the relevant residential, commercial and industrial areas belonging to a place), but we don't.
Simon
Simon
Am 01.01.2021 um 15:32 schrieb Peter Berger:
Hi Simon
When a municipality is extend we have only the historic boundarys from the disappearing municipality but not from the extended one. And will you suggest to remain the historic ones at all?
Peter
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 01.01.2021 um 12:43 schrieb Simon Poole simon@poole.ch:
Jonas seems to be AWOL after preparing everything, so in his place:
As every year there are a number of municipality mergers and other changes that we need to do.
The list is here https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Switzerland/2021_Municipality_ M ergers
There are 20 actions required per 1.1.2021 (there are some listed for later in the year), so quite a bit more than the last couple of years.
If you want to work on one, please note it in the list before you start working so there is no concurrent and unnecessary editing.
Simon
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
-
Peter Berger -
peter.berger＠bluewin.ch
-
Sarah Hoffmann -
Simon Poole