[talk-au] Local Government Areas without Councils

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Thu Dec 22 23:28:34 UTC 2016 

Lets have a while to think about it... no hurry?

My initial though is that it should be a broader description ..

"Border of a local government 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_government>  or an authority 
performing the functions of a local government 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_government> (e.g. Cobar Shire 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobar_Shire>, Municipality of 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipality_of_Strathfield>Strathfield 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipality_of_Strathfield> , North 
Sydney Council <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sydney_Council>, 
Unincorporated Far West 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unincorporated_Far_West> ,     )  "???

The examples are NSW only ... and should be expanded to other parts. But 
is does include Shire, Municipality and Council examples.

It is a bit verbose.

On 23-Dec-16 09:50 AM, cleary wrote:
>
>
> Thank you for the feedback about this issue.
>
> I understand that Andrew would prefer non-council LGAs be negatively 
> mapped (i.e they constitute areas within a state that are not mapped 
> as council LGAs) but I didn't perceive that to be the view of other 
> respondents. It would also mean that the names of these areas would 
> not appear on the map, defeating one of the purposes of a map.
>
> I suggest a simple one-word change in the wiki so that Level 6 
> administrative boundaries in Australia would read "Local Government 
> Area Border (e.g Shire/Council)" replacing "Local Government Authority 
> Border (e.g Shire/Council)" clarifying that we map the area rather 
> than the form of administration in the area.
>
> I looked at the possibility of separating the areas into LGAs 
> administered by councils, LGAs administered by other bodies, and LGAs 
> without a single administering authority and mapping them with 
> different admin_levels but it seems a very clumsy solution.
>
> I also looked again at the model for States and Territories. In that 
> category we have three different categories (1) States administered by 
> governments with powers independent of the Commonwealth, Territories 
> with governments with limited powers and ultimately subject to 
> Commonwealth control, and the Jervis Bay Territory which has no single 
> administering authority.  All are mapped as admin_level=4 which I 
> think is appropriate.  If we think an LGA should not be mapped because 
> it does not have an administering authority, would we also delete the 
> Jervis Bay Territory for the same reason? I would hope not.
>
> Which brings me back to the simplest solution, changing the term 
> "Local Government Authority" to "Local Government Area" in the wiki.
>
> Is this suggestion generally acceptable or could someone else suggest 
> a more acceptable solution to the question?
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016, at 08:48 AM, Warin wrote:
>> On 21-Dec-16 05:10 PM, Warin wrote:
>>> Hummm
>>> How about looking at it from a data consumers view point?
>>> Who would use boundary level 6  and what for?
>>>
>>> A resident/occupier/potential purchaser/developer may want to know 
>>> who is the relevant authority for a particular property ...
>>> A new employee many want confirmation of the boundaries of the 
>>> authority they are working for.
>>>  I suppose you could ask a real estate agent (joke) or look in OSM ...
>>> If you are in one of these 'unincorporated areas' then with 
>>> Andrew's' 'rule' you won't get an answer.. not much help.
>>>
>>> I would think that the 'rule' is easily expanded to include 
>>> unincorporated areas.
>>> What is/are  the objection/s to this expansion? Other than 'it is 
>>> not in the wiki'.
>>>
>>>  On 21-Dec-16 11:35 AM, Andrew Davidson wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's pretty simple:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Admin level 6 boundaries are supposed to enclose a "Local 
>>>> Government Authority".
>>>>
>>>> 2. In NSW the only form of "Local Government Authority" are 
>>>> councils incorporated under the Local Government Act.
>>>>
>>>> 3. The areas covered by these councils are "incorporated areas".
>>>>
>>>> 4. The three polygons in the LPI dataset labelled "UNINCORPORATED" 
>>>> represent areas that are not in the "incorporated areas" and 
>>>> therefore have no "Local Government Authority".
>>>>
>>>> 5. You don't put boundaries around things that don't exist.
>>>
>>> Unincorporated areas exit.
>>> They form a similar role to 'Local Councils'.
>>> The areas do not overlap, in fact sharing the same ways/part 
>>> boundaries.
>>> There would be no data conflict in adding these to boundary level 6.
>>>
>>
>> Looking 
>> athttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative#10_admin_level_values_for_specific_countries 
>>
>> the United kingdom for level 6 boundary has "administrative counties 
>> / Unitary authorities 
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_authority>, City of London"
>>
>> And the wiki on Unitary authorities 
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_authority> says in part "type 
>> of local authority that has a single tier and is responsible for all 
>> local government <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_government> 
>> functions within its area"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> QED.
>>>>
>>>> The SA case is complicated by the existence of the Outback 
>>>> Communities Authority. According to the Office of Local Government 
>>>> it's not included:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dpti.sa.gov.au/local_govt.
>>>>
>>>> Which is supported by the fact that the name includes the phrase 
>>>> "unincorporated area".
>>>>
>>>> On 2016-12-21 09:15, cleary wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been adding administrative boundaries in NSW and SA using the
>>>>> Government data for which OSM has been given explicit permission. 
>>>>> I am
>>>>> currently working on the "Pastoral Unincorporated Area" in SA and
>>>>> another mapper commented that it was inappropriate. I responded 
>>>>> but my
>>>>> response appears not to have satisfied the other mapper.  I then 
>>>>> found
>>>>> that the same mapper had deleted the "Unincorporated Area of New 
>>>>> South
>>>>> Wales" because it was not administered by a council.
>>>>>
>>>>> Both of these "unincorporated" areas are defined and designated in 
>>>>> the
>>>>> respective government datasets, that is (1) South Australian 
>>>>> Government
>>>>> Data - Local Government Areas and (2) LPI NSW Administrative 
>>>>> Boundaries
>>>>> - Local Government.
>>>>>
>>>>> The issue for the other mapper appears to be the acceptability of the
>>>>> form of governance of these areas. While the majority of local
>>>>> government areas are administered by councils, this model works less
>>>>> well in areas which are sparsely populated. The Pastoral 
>>>>> Unincorporated
>>>>> Area in South Australia is administered by a designated authority, 
>>>>> the
>>>>> Outback Communities Authority, which is not a council either in 
>>>>> name or
>>>>> in the usual sense. I am aware of three other designated local
>>>>> government areas in South Australia that do not have councils - 
>>>>> two are
>>>>> administered by the indigenous residents although they appear to have
>>>>> some form of executive committee to make routine decisions. One
>>>>> designated local government area does not appear to have a council 
>>>>> and I
>>>>> have not ascertained the form of governance.  In the 
>>>>> Unincorporated Area
>>>>> of New South Wales, responsibilities are dispersed and do not rest 
>>>>> with
>>>>> any one body, for example roads are managed by the Roads and Maritime
>>>>> Services (state authority) and there are local advisory committees in
>>>>> some isolated communities.
>>>>>
>>>>> The key issue is whether the form of governance in an area should
>>>>> determine whether or not areas should be mapped in OSM. It seems 
>>>>> to me
>>>>> to be akin to removing Northern Territory and ACT on the basis 
>>>>> that they
>>>>> have different forms of governance and are not proper states!
>>>>>
>>>>> The comments on the Pastoral Unincorporated Area can be viewed at
>>>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/44528330#map=12/-34.3720/140.4687 
>>>>>
>>>>> The relation for the Pastoral Unincorporated Area is at
>>>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6804541
>>>>> The deleted relation for Unincorporated Area of New South Wales is at
>>>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5892272 and refers to Changeset
>>>>> #44531564
>>>>>
>>>>> Do other members of the OSM community have a view on whether the 
>>>>> form of
>>>>> governance should determine what areas are shown on the map and
>>>>> particularly whether local government areas should be included if 
>>>>> they
>>>>> are not administered by councils.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>>>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20161223/053ed648/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Talk-au mailing list