[Talk-ro] Level 8 administrative boundaries in Romania

[Laurens Jozef Nicolaas Oostwegel]

Dear members of the OSM Romania community,

In our project on earthquake risk analysis, we are using the administrative boundaries of all countries in Europe. In Romania we are using the level 8 (Municipii, Orașe și Comune) administrative boundaries. I have found that, while the majority of the municipalities/communes are mapped, there are many not existing.

I was wondering, why these administrative boundaries are missing, as it seems like these are imported from the governmental data portal (https://data.gov.ro/dataset/unitati-administrative), with attribution to the dataset. Is there a reason why some boundaries have been imported, while others have not? Are there any ongoing efforts regarding these boundaries?

Added here a picture where boundaries that have been imported are white and the ones not are red.

Thank you for the good efforts in mapping Romania. I am looking forward to your response,

Laurens Oostwegel

[Razvan Radulescu]

Hi, Probably this is the state from the first import of boundaries and no one completed the missing ones until now.

You can ask the question on openstreetmap Romania Facebook page too. Maybe someone from there knows more about this problem.

_______________________________________________
Talk-ro mailing list
Tal...@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ro

[Michael Häckel]

Hi,

Well the original import from many years ago actually reflected the
residential areas instead of the real boundaries. Now there is correct data.
User ted3sco added some boundaries about two years ago and apparently didn't
finish it. Probably this requires a lot of manual work. I can't remember that
this topic was ever discussed here.

Best regards,
Michael

Am Freitag, 30. September 2022, 13:35:41 CEST schrieb Razvan Radulescu:
> Hi, Probably this is the state from the first import of boundaries and
> no one completed the missing ones until now.
>
> You can ask the question on openstreetmap Romania Facebook page too.
> Maybe someone from there knows more about this problem.
>
> On 9/29/2022 18:01 PM, Laurens Jozef Nicolaas Oostwegel wrote:
> > Dear members of the OSM Romania community,
> >
> > In our project on earthquake risk analysis, we are using the
> > administrative boundaries of all countries in Europe. In Romania we
> > are using the level 8 (Municipii, Orașe și Comune) administrative
> > boundaries. I have found that, while the majority of the
> > municipalities/communes are mapped, there are many not existing.
> >
> > I was wondering, why these administrative boundaries are missing, as
> > it seems like these are imported from the governmental data portal
> > (https://data.gov.ro/dataset/unitati-administrative), with attribution
> > to the dataset. Is there a reason why some boundaries have been
> > imported, while others have not? Are there any ongoing efforts
> > regarding these boundaries?
> >
> > Added here a picture where boundaries that have been imported are
> > white and the ones not are red.
> >
> >

[Vlad Sîngeorzan]

Hello,

Indeed the missing data is due to human resources, the import is still progressing, but slowly.

ted3sco started the process and mapped most of them; I also helped and added 2 or 3 counties worth of administrative boundaries.

The imports requires a very thorough work and we only find time to do it rarely.

If anyone wants to help I can provide instructions on where to find the data, how to use it and the process to correctly add them to OSM without messing anything up.

[Adi Neamțu]

Hello,
ted3sco here.

I'll continue until the end of the year to finish adding the remaining
administrative borders for Local Administrative Units.

I used the data from data.gov.ro for Local administrative units
(NUTS3). https://data.gov.ro/dataset/unitati-administrativ-teritoriale-24-02-2021
There are two kinds of data files there. One with only the ways and
tags on the ways(Limita_Administrativa_UAT), and the other one has
also relations, but with duplicate and overlapping
ways(Unitate_Administrativa_UAT).
I chose to work with the first one, because with the second one I
needed to split and remove every duplicate way and then adding the
common ways in the adjacent relation.

The latest .kmz file update is from 2021 and after adding it into
JOSM, I removed the default tags that were not usable, simplified the
ways because in some cases there were too many nodes and saved it for
future use.
The resulted file is here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oCnp2pWGWywOyu7WVLT_2Hw7rnstznUG/view

I copied the ways in chunks and created the relations with tags
manually comparing it with ANCPI Geoportal for the name of the LAU
https://geoportal.ancpi.ro/geoportal/imobile/Harta.html.
The admin_center in the relation sometimes is not the same as the name
of the LAU, so I used other sources to verify it.

Maybe there could of been an easier way, maybe with scripts, but when
first started it was just to add LAU in my area of interest
(South-West), after a while I extended further across Romania with the
cities/towns, and eventually added most of the administrative units
along the country border.