Talk:Mexico's Administrative Divisions Import Project

I'm opening the discussion regarding the first feedback from the community. Will use this page to track the discussion:

1. Today User:jorge_o expressed his concern that the tagging plan to use admin level = 5 is not a good option in his opinion since it doesn't allow for inter-municipal entities like inter-municipal joints or metropolitan zones which are composed of municipalities from different states. The initial proposal for User:Andresuco considered level 5 for municipalities since the objective was to leave more layers available at the bottom and moving up the level for municipalities since that seemed as the more appropriate strategy based on the following assumptions:

Future proofing.

The main objective is to map and match all boundaries in OSM with the data released by INEGI but keeping the INEGI MGN code for future-proofing the updatability of the import, having in mind that most of the INEGI (and hence all Mexican government geographic data releases) should use INEGI MGN codes for their data releases, so it would make sense to reference the data in OSM with the INEGI MGN code (please note that the tagging scheme to keep INEGI MGN codes is still not detailed in the import project guideline) to make it easier in the future to automatically publish a potential update or doing a future import.

Admin official status

Any supra-municipal entity (or any entity composed of boundaries between the State and Municipal levels for that matter)is not an official boundary so it might be tagged with a relation instead of wasting a vacant level for a boundary that is not constitutionally official.

Avoid wasting vacant levels

A lot of vacant levels were needed in the remaining admin levels below the municipality level which are also as important as inter-municipal levels (to make room for AGEBS, Localities and City Blocks.

Further discussion details about admin levels in OSM Mexico please the forum at [[]]