[Talk-GB] Possible Boundary Vandalism Warning

[Colin Smale]

I had already suggested boundary=planning to SemanticTourist.
Boundary=civil is rather ambiguous. In my eyes the boundary tag serves
to differentiate which hierarchy the area belongs to. For example
boundary=police might serve for police force jurisdictions, with
different values of admin_level for force areas and districts (not sure
exactly how they are organised). 

NP's don't have an admin function in
the sense of a separate body to administer them, they are just documents
with a legal status which are owned by (and binding on) certain bodies.
There might also be Traffic Plans, Landscaping Plans etc etc.


According to Wikipedia: 

In England the local planning authorities
are 32 London borough [2] councils, 36 metropolitan borough [3]
councils, 201 non-metropolitan district [4] councils, 55 unitary
authority [5] councils, the City of London Corporation [6] and the
Council of the Isles of Scilly [7]. 

Neighbourhood Plans are for
subareas of the LPAs. 

Colin 

On 2013-03-23 18:12, Jason Woollacott
wrote: 

> Thinking about how to code them, maybe boundary=civil would
be acceptable. 
> Somebody could probably form an argument for
boundary=Administrative, as 
> they do have an admin function, but they
would need to be different from 
> the Civil Parish.
> 
> Jason
(UniEagle)
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Colin Smale
> Sent:
Saturday, March 23, 2013 2:24 PM
> To: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
>
Subject: [Talk-GB] Possible Boundary Vandalism Warning
> 
> Just wanted
to give everyone a heads-up...
> 
> User SemanticTourist has been very
busy recently with Neighbourhood Plan
> areas, particularly in East/West
Sussex, Kent and central England.
> He has been adding them to the map
in a way that IMHO is not compatible
> with current practice.
> 
> Note
that Neighbourhood Plan areas are often coincident with civil
>
parishes, as the parish council is invited to make its own NP. However
>
this is not always the case.
> The parish can exclude parts of its area
from the NP area, and can
> cooperate with adjacent parishes to "trade"
areas in order to make more
> sense from a planning perspective.
> In
addition, NPs can be set up for non-parished areas by suitable bodies
>
as determined by the main local authority.
> 
> I make the following
observations:
> 1) He uses a single way (with common nodes on common
boundaries with
> adjacent areas) for a complete boundary instead of
boundary relations
> and a shared way
> 2) Tagging the way with
boundary=administrative, admin_level=10 despite
> the fact that they do
not represent an area of local government
> 3) There appears to be
something not quite right with the projection of
> his boundaries as
they are displaced by several metres with respect to
> existing
boundaries
> 
> In spite of promises made in email exchanges he is
continuing to work in
> this way. As far as I am concerned it's fine to
add NP areas to OSM, but
> not as boundary=administrative with
> an
admin_level as this overloads the way parish/community areas are
>
tagged at present. We were getting closer and closer to complete
>
coverage of admin areas in the UK but this
> is just spoiling it.
> 
>
What do others think?
> 
> Colin
> 
>
_______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
>
Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb [1] 
> 
>
_______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
>
Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb [1]




Links:
------
[1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_borough
[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_borough
[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-metropolitan_district
[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_authorities_of_England
[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Corporation
[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_the_Isles_of_Scilly
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20130323/bd4a69a2/attachment.html>