I corrected now nearly all broken level=8 boundaries.
The mapping of wards is really difficult, if the level=8 boundaries shall remain and all new level=9 boundairies are kept separate. Often the level=8 boundaries are quite the same as the new ward boundaries. It would be much easier, if I work as follows:
a) delete all existing level=8 boundaries in a level=7 area
b) map the new ward boundaries in the level=7 boundary
So the question is, whether the level=8 boundaries are still really necessary.
No, the level=8 boundaries are no longer necessary.
What I am doing in this case is: I am converting the ways with admin_level=8 to admin_level=9 and create new relations with level=9. I haven’t deleted the relations of disused:boundary level=8 at the moment but I think there is no problem with deleting them.
Sometimes, the level=8 boundaries are identical to the ward boundary level=9. In this case, I am converting the disused:boundary level=8 to boundary level =9.
I tried to delete the level=8 boundaries where wards are completely mapped now.
Since these boundaries are often merged with other objects, it is nearly impossible to delete them without producing errors.
I deleted there the level=8 relations; and deleted the tags „boundary=administrative“ and „admin_level=8“ of all related ways. Now there are thousands of useless way segments without tags.
Thank you @Heinz_V
You completed Sudurpashchim province (i.e 9 districts-734 wards). That’s great.
I completed 3 districts from Lumbini Province (Dang, Rolpa, and Pyuthan - about 250 wards) in the same time.
In that shapefile, there was slight boundary issue (mistake) between Salyan and Dang district boundary i.e. wards of Babai Rural Municipality and Kalimati Rural Municipality. So, I have also done ward mapping in that region.
All Admin_level=8 boundaries there are deleted; some ways of these boundaries are still there without any tags. I do not know an easy way to delete them (maybe some of their nodes are merged to other objects??).
Please, are there other mappers with experience in boundary-mapping who can help to map wards?
On your Neis stats page there is a link to OSM Inspector issues
All those that have a “no_feature_tag_node” text are the ones in need of eradication or tagging. By prefiltered Inspector map you just need to home in into the area of interest to see the specific problems being highlighted on the map
@Heinz_V
Due to my examinations, I will be unable to allocate time for mapping for two more weeks. After that time, I will actively be supporting you to map the wards.
Your efforts to map wards boundaries within Nepal are really commendable. Thank you so much for your efforts.
I think there are very few people in Nepal OSM community with capability to work on such complex admin boundaries. So, no one is supporting us.
No worries, we few people can also do this task. We will need patience and persistence.
I think the admin_level of provinces of Nepal is one of the things that went unnoticed. Currently, the provinces of Nepal are mapped at admin_level=3 but I think they should be mapped as admin_level=4.
Before 2015, there were 5 development regions in use instead of 7 provinces in Nepal. At that time development regions were mapped as admin_level=4, so someone could have suggested to map provinces with different admin level of admin_level=3.
But in administrative practice, provinces were lower entities than development regions in case of Nepal. It means the correct classification is admin_level=3 for development regions and admin_level=4 for provinces of Nepal. Since, Development Regions doesn’t exist at present time, we only need to classify the admin_level of Provinces as level 4.
the highest sub-national unit has the admin_level=4 and admin_level=3 is not used (some exceptions).
So it is a good idea to map the provinces with admin_level=4.
Another problem is admin_levels on the ways of boundaries:
Boundaries are always mapped by relations, which define all tags. So it is not necessary that the ways also have admn_level tags. Only the national border ways do have additionally admin_level=2 tags.
There are in Nepal many wrong admin_level tags on boundary ways.
While mappig wards, I delete all admin_level tags on the boundary ways inside of municipalities.
While not necessary, it is common practice in many countries to add highest applicable admin_level to all boundary=administrative ways, not just if it’s admin_level=2.