[Talk-GB] District Boundaries - N Wales

[Bogus Zaba]

Peter Miller wrote:
>
> On 17 Aug 2009, at 21:09, Bogus Zaba wrote:
>
>> I have completed the following relations for Unitary Authority
>> Boundaries and put them in the Wales Wiki : Wrexham (137981), Flintshire
>> (198566) and Denbighshire (192442). Now some inevitable questions:
>
> That' good.
>>
>> 1. How should Flintshire and Denbighshire be completed out at sea? On
>> the Wales Wiki it says "The current Wales Boundary (08 July 2009) is
>> both wrong and unhelpful." So I guess I should not be using that.
>> Currently Unitary Authority boundary lines go out to sea traced from the
>> NPE, but they do not join up with any coastal boundary. As it happens in
>> this part of NE Wales, nobody seems to have made the coastline (high
>> water mark?) ways to be members of the national boundary relation,
>> although that has been done for about 70% of the welsh coastline.
>
> I did have a complete Welsh boundary at high-water but following the 
> discussion above part of it was removed and I was waiting for the 
> issue to be resolved and that someone else would fix it. I see the 
> other post about counties and unitaries stopping at low-water - not 
> sure is this answers the question for Wales itself though.
>>
>> 2. In putting together the relations for these boundaries I found myself
>> splitting a lot of roads and streams into relatively short sections so
>> that I could then make these sections members of the boundary relation.
>> Is this recognised good practice, or is it better to make a separate
>> boundary way which simple shares nodes with the relevant stream or road
>> etc ?
>
> I prefer to lay another way between the same nodes if adding the 
> boundary into the way would result in splitting the other feature up 
> un-necessarily however I do add the feature to the boundary relation 
> the boundary follows the feature for a long time (for example a river 
> or railway line that is following for a considerable length).
>
>>
>> 3. In doing all this I have used the NPE layer which can be used as a
>> backdrop in josm and potlatch. I have realised that this NPE is not the
>> same NPE as can be found in other places (eg the postcode collection
>> application at http://www.npemap.org.uk/).   The latter is clearer than
>> the  tiles in josm and potlatch especially regarding parish boundaries
>> (which you find yourself tracing) which are nice dotted lines in the
>> postcode application and faded grey lines in the josm/patlatch layers.
>> Can the clearer (newer?) tiles be made available in the osm editing
>> environments ?
>
> No idea on that one.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Peter
>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Bogus Zaba
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
OK, Denbighshire & Flintshire now have completed boundaries with a low 
water seaward boundary line, traced from NPE.

I was going to create this as a natural feature but in the end could not 
find a preset set of tags that seemed to fit and not feeling quite 
confident enough to invent my own, I just made this line an 
administrative boundary and then made it part of the relevant relations.

Please tell me if anybody thinks this is wrong.

I am on holiday for 2 weeks and plan to carry on with Conwy, Gwynedd and 
Anglesey when I get back.

Bogus Zaba