[Talk-GB] Admin Boundaries and Combined Authorities

Brian Prangle bprangle at gmail.com
Mon Jul 27 19:36:22 UTC 2020


I favour admin  level 5 too. West Midlands CA is tagged as 6 which was a
pure estimate by me as being at least equivalent to the constituent LA
members.  Transport is a heck of a slice of its budget and function
(capital £300m and operating £100m) It  also plays a big role in economic
development ( which includes skills development) and strategic planning for
housing (with a big budget for brownfield remediation) and has just been
given a budget of £100m  for taking on the responsibility for adult
education. WMCA also has projects in the area of mental health and I
believe the Manchester CA has responsibility for health generally. So CAs
do have quite a few uber admin functions at a level "above" existing
authorities which the constituent members have relinquished and should be
given an admin level.  Quite how you represent the associate "observer"
members is a puzzle I've steered clear of

regards

Brian

On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 at 23:52, Colin Smale <colin.smale at xs4all.nl> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I think we need to discuss tagging of Combined Authorities. I spotted an
> edit that changed the tagging on West Yorkshire Combined Authority, and it
> was pointed out to me that there were already other instances of similar
> tagging for Combined Authorities (Greater Manchester for example).
>
> CAs have basically zero interaction with the public, except for the
> directly elected Mayor; although they have certain statutory tasks (public
> transport etc). They can be seen as a grouping of local authorities, as
> opposed to a LA in their own right. Should they really be tagged as
> boundary=administrative at all? Or should they have a parallel hierarchy as
> is used for police areas for example?
>
> If they are accepted as boundary=administrative, what admin level should
> be used? The LAs of which the CAs are composed are sometimes Metropolitan
> Boroughs with admin_level=8, and sometimes Unitary Authorities with
> admin_level=6. I am tending towards admin_level=5; this value is/was in use
> for the Regions, but they no longer have an admin function (if they ever
> had one) so I consider admin level 5 as "available" for use by Combined
> Authorities.
>
> An alternative may be to represent them as relations containing as members
> the constituent authorities. This would have the advantage of the ability
> (through the use of roles) to distinguish between "constituent councils"
> which are full members and "non-constituent councils" which only
> participate in certain committees.
>
> Any thoughts or comments?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20200727/cedefdc3/attachment.htm>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list