Proposal:Refugee Camp Boundaries

Refugee Camp Boundaries
Proposal status:	Abandoned (inactive)
Proposed by:	Kateregga1
Tagging:	boundary=refugee_camp Data item
Applies to:
Definition:	Refugee camp/settlement boundary tagging
Statistics:
Draft started:	2018-03-14
RFC start:	2018-05-24

Introduction

Current Guidance for IDP/refugee camps

Current guidance for administrative levels within the camp are recorded at 2 levels (According to the Refugee Mapping wiki), following traditional administrative boundary tagging: For level 1 (Camp sectors or modules)

key	value
place	suburb
admin_level	8
boundary	administrative
refugee	yes

For level 2 (Camp blocks or communities)

key	value
place	neighbourhood
admin_level	9
boundary	administrative
refugee	yes

At this moment, refugee camp/settlement tagging is applied inconsistently, and the use of the same boundaries and admin_levels as are used at the national and subnational level creates issues in a number of situations, including being hard to explain and thus limiting uptake among local government officials and responders. Unclarity on which set of boundaries take precedence, and how these affect accountability in regards to population serve as indicators that this system needs changing to reflect the growing need for consistently representing refugees and displaced persons on a map.

Options to distinguish regular administrative boundaries from refugee camps:

1. Use regular `boundary=administrative`, but use a different hierarchical structure for `admin_level` (for example, `admin_level=7_rc`). Disadvantage: not in use currently, adherence to numeric values seems pretty unanimous for `admin_level`.
2. (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/admin_level#values).
3. Use regular `admin_level` values and `boundary=administrative`, only amended with `refugee=yes`. This seems to be used on several other camps right now.
4. Use `admin_level` as normal, but introduce a new value for boundary, in effect allowing a parallel hierarchy of admin_levels specific to refugee camps/settlements . Used for example on national parks, postal codes, voting districts and other boundaries that may intersect with administrative boundaries at various levels (`boundary=national_park`). Proposal for the value to use: `boundary=refugee_camp`.

OSM Boundary Resources

• https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Boundaries
• https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary=administrative
• https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:boundary
• https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:boundary
• https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/boundary#values
• https://wambachers-osm.website/boundaries/

Proposal

1. We are proposing to go with option #3: “Use `admin_level` as normal, but introduce a new value for boundary, in effect allowing a parallel hierarchy of admin_levels specific to refugee camps/settlements.”

1. What value should we use on `boundary`? We propose to use the key/value `boundary=refugee_camp` for all types of refugee camps, including IDPs. For backwards compatibility, these boundaries should als be tagged with `refugee=yes`. While using `refugee_camp` does not explicitly reference IDPs, it meets the criteria of being clear, concise, intuitive, and easy to remember.

1. This allows for:
   1. Boundaries of refugee camps/settlements to be defined independent/in parallel to the regular administrative boundaries of a country;
   2. Quick identification of mapped refugee camps, for use in portals such as https://ugandarefugees.org/ and http://maps.unhcr.org/apps/cm/index.html?camp=UGAs027216 (which CartoNG is working on to improve with better analysis of OSM data);
   3. Visualization/analysis of the coverage of refugee camps versus host communities and already inhabited land.

1. In addition to these, the `Refugee Camp Mapping` wiki mentions camp boundaries may be tagged with `landuse=residential` as well. We think this should remain recommended. This helps identify camps in (early) stages of refugee crises where boundaries may be fluid, dynamic, de facto rather than official, and evolving.

Rationale

• Refugee and IDP camps and settlements (both official and informal) may exist across national and subnational administrative boundaries. For example, Rhino camp in Uganda spans multiple counties and subcounties in Arua district, while Bidibidi spans multiple counties and subcounties in Yumbe district.

• The potential downside is that these boundaries will not be rendered on the regular OSM basemap (yet). However, a principle in OSM is not to tag for rendering effecs (only). Additional tagging with `landuse=residential` can alleviate this to a certain extent.

• Using a distinct value for `boundary` allows responding organizations to easily identify camp outlines and facilities, and set up exports specifically for these responders.

Tagging

Formal Camps/Settlements (polygons/relations)

key	value	required?	taginfo?
boundary	refugee_camp	yes	taginfo
admin_level	[2-11]	yes	wiki
name	<sting>	yes	wiki
refugee	yes	yes	taginfo
landuse	residential	temporary	wiki
population	<number, estimated population>	optional	wiki
capacity	<number, planned max population>	optional	wiki
start_date	<date, establishment>	optional	wiki
operator	<name of operator>	optional	wiki
operator:type	<ngo,community,government,intergovernmental_organization>	optional	wiki
name:en	<string>	optional	wiki
official_name	<string>	optional	wiki
loc_name	<string>, local name	optional	wiki

Additionally on relations:

element_type	key	value	required?	taginfo?
relation	type	boundary	yes	wiki
relation_member	role	subarea	if child	wiki
way_member	role	inner	optional	wiki
way_member	role	outer	optional	wiki
node_member	role	admin_centre	optional	wiki

Informal camps - No official boundary (polygons)

key	values	required?
refugee	yes	yes
landuse	residential	yes
place	refugee_camp	yes
population	<number, estimated population>	optional
capacity	<number, estimated or planned max population>	optional
start_date	<data, establishment>	optional
name	<string>	yes
name:en	<string>	optional
loc_name	<string>, local name	optional

Application in Uganda, OPM/UNHCR Settlement Structure Arua

Imvepi Settlement	Rhino Camp
01 Settlement	01 Settlement
02 Zone	02 Zone
03 Point	03 Village
04 Village/Block/Tank	04 Block/Tank

Proposed Uganda “admin_level” Adaptation

element_type	key	value	settlement_level	query
relation	admin_level	2	settlement	Link
relation	admin_level	3	zone	Link
relation	admin_level	4	village/point	Link
relation	admin_level	5	villages/block/tank	Link

Camp boundaries - Applied in Uganda

Main Settlement

key	values	required?
refugee	yes	yes
admin_level	2	yes
boundary	refugee_camp	yes
name	<string>	yes
type	boundary	if relation
operator	<string>	optional
operator:type	<ngo, community, government>	if operator=*
population	<number, estimated population>	optional
capacity	<number, estimated or planned max population>	optional
start_date	<data, establishment>	optional

Settlement Subareas

Zones

key	values	required?
refugee	yes	yes
admin_level	3	yes
boundary	refugee_camp	yes
name		yes
type	boundary	if relation

Points/Villages

key	values	required?
refugee	yes	yes
admin_level	4	yes
boundary	refugee_camp	yes
name	<string>	yes
type	boundary	if relation

Blocks/Tanks/Villages

key	values	required?
refugee	yes	yes
admin_level	5	yes
boundary	refugee_camp	yes
name	<string>	yes
type	boundary	if relation

Rendering

Refugee Camp Boundaries - Uganda (Query: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/wPc☂)

Settlements - admin_level=2 (Query: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/x4e☂)

Zones - admin_level=3 (Query: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/wOh☂)

Villages/Points - admin_level=4 (Query: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/wOi☂)

Blocks/Tanks/Villages - admin_level=5 (Query: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/wOj☂)

Comments

Please comment on the discussion page.