village boundary layer for Karnataka

["Sharad Lele [शरच्चंद्र लेले]"]

Dear All,

I have uploaded a village boundary layer for Karnataka (shapefile
format). Also has a README file explaining its source, strengths and
limitations. Link is:

https://app.box.com/s/fah79mv5fe951ywmq5d3

Hope this is useful. Would be nice if folks who use it post information
on how it was used.

I should mention that we paid for the layer but would like to make it
freely available. Ideally, if it were ported to Google maps, that would
help a lot of people. But that would also need better geo-rectification.

Sharad

--
Democratizing Forest Governance in India
(In press with Oxford University Press India)

[Dilip Damle]

Dear Mr. Lele,

Nice datatset 

I have converted the dataset to kml file for the reference of the people who may want to view it in Google Earth,

I have just converted it as it is. 

here are the links for download

http://tinyurl.com/qem2r4b

readme copy is here

http://tinyurl.com/q5hj25x

Rgds

Dilip Damle

[Justin Meyers]

Sharad,

Thanks for uploading this.  I have looked at this and compared to a few other datasets.  I have a question about a location in your dataset and how it lines up with census data/ codes.  

LOC_CODE: 15103000 NAME:Krishnarajasagara Nac

If you go to the Census Digital Library (http://www.censusindia.gov.in/DigitalLibrary/Tables.aspx) and look at the 2001 table for the Mandya District, the first records in the table read:

STATE	DISTRICT	SUB-DISTT	TOWN_VILL	WARD	EB	LEVEL	NAME	TRU
29	22	0000	00000000	0	0	DISTRICT	Mandya	Total
29	22	0000	00000000	0	0	DISTRICT	Mandya	Rural
29	22	0000	00000000	0	0	DISTRICT	Mandya	Urban
29	22	0000	42205000	0	0	TOWN	Krishnarajasagara (NAC)	Urban
29	22	0000	42205000	1	0	WARD	Krishnarajasagara (NAC) - Ward No.1	Urban

I have seen SUB-DISTT codes of 0000 before for states, districts, and very large cities (i.e. Hyderabad) - but this is something new!?  I believe the census table is wrong.  But something that is kinda throwing me off as well is your data has two of these, both with identical records, and the same Taluk, but you can see i think it should be split (but not certain)?

a last thing to throw in the mix is that in a different census gis dataset, the north part has :2922000302365700 Chikkayarahalli and the south part has 2922000402378200 Hongahalli - these are both in the census table as well...

Can anyone make sense of this!??

Thanks!  Justin

[Sharad Lele]

Hi Justin,

Thanks for pointing this out. I am sure there are a few other such errors in our layer--as mentioned in the readme, it was digitized from maps in census of india district handbooks, and those maps contain other confusing features such as roads, which may get mis-digitized. I don't have an immediate response beyond this. It will take me a while to get to the nittygritty. But others are welcome to point out more errors. The only tragedy here is that we are all reinventing a wheel invented at least 3 times before: village boundaries have been digitized by state Remote Sensing Application Centres, by individual departments when they need them, and now (as mentioned in a separate post) by Census!

Sharad