You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We are currently evaluating the Overture "Divisions" dataset as a potential global administrative boundary source for geospatial analytics.
I have a question regarding the relationship between administrative levels. The documentation describes the logical hierarchy through parent_division_id and hierarchies, but I couldn't find information about the geometric relationship between polygons at different levels.
Specifically, are there any guarantees that:
Child polygons form an exact partition of their parent polygon?
The union of all child polygons is geometrically identical to the parent polygon?
Boundaries are topologically aligned across hierarchy levels (i.e., no gaps or overlaps between adjacent levels)?
Or should the hierarchy be interpreted as a logical/administrative relationship only, without guarantees that geometries align perfectly across levels?
Moreover, do neighboring polygons form a seamless coverage within the same administrative level (i.e., no gaps or overlaps between adjacent division polygons)?
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Hi Overture team,
We are currently evaluating the Overture "Divisions" dataset as a potential global administrative boundary source for geospatial analytics.
I have a question regarding the relationship between administrative levels. The documentation describes the logical hierarchy through
parent_division_idandhierarchies, but I couldn't find information about the geometric relationship between polygons at different levels.Specifically, are there any guarantees that:
Or should the hierarchy be interpreted as a logical/administrative relationship only, without guarantees that geometries align perfectly across levels?
Moreover, do neighboring polygons form a seamless coverage within the same administrative level (i.e., no gaps or overlaps between adjacent division polygons)?
Thank you in advance for your help!
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions