[Talk-GB] boundary mania
colin.smale at xs4all.nl
Sun Aug 26 22:54:45 UTC 2018
On 2018-08-27 00:24, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On 26/08/2018 21:36, Colin Smale wrote: On 2018-08-26 21:17, David Woolley wrote:
> It looks to me as though boundaries can be defined recursively, so Hampshire, rather than its bounding ways, ought to to be the object referenced in the bigger entities. This wouldn't work in the case of civil parishes as components of districts and UA's though. You cannot define a district as the union of the parishes. There are unparished areas, detached parts and "lands common" which complicate the model. However I believe every point in the UK is within some district/UA, and every district is within a county, giving 100% coverage at that level.
Every point is within a district, but not every district is within a
county - unless, that is, you consider a unitary authority to be
effectively two different entities that happen to have identical
I think you understood what I meant. AIUI a UA is normally technically a
district. A city is an orthogonal concept- a "city council" can be a UA
(eg Nottingham), a District (eg Canterbury) or a Civil Parish (eg
Salisbury) that has been awarded that status. And not every city has its
own council of any type (eg Bath).
And of course a council is not an area, it is an administrative body.
There are admin areas defined in law that do not have a corresponding
council, eg the county of Berkshire and many Civil Parishes. Sometimes
they play games with the naming: Rutland County Council is not a county
council, because there is no extant county of Rutland. It is a
non-metropolitan district with unitary status, whose council is formally
called Rutland County Council District Council.
I stand by my comment that the "sum of parts" system could work down to
the district/UA level, and not down to the civil parish level.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-GB