[OSM-talk] is_in

[Abigail Brady]

On 5/28/07, Robert Hart <bathterror at gmail.com> wrote:
> no, but I think however does, just sits down with the OS map, and
> draws them in, then you get sucked into this whole derived data debate
> all over again. Its the same with footpaths - if it's on an OS map
> then there is a legal right of way, regardless if there is anything
> actually visible on the ground.

Yep.  It's not too bad when the boundaries follow or cross roads, as
you can deduce those
from the signage.  It's when they do things like follow ancient hedges
which are no longer there.  Although many parish borders are the same
as they have been for centuries and thus we might be able to extract
them from out-of-copyright-maps, any changes to them have been defined
with reference to OS maps, sometimes with no textual description at
all; there is also the issue of accuracy - if a housing estate gets
built on top of that ancient hedge border, they'll take more care
drawing the line in their cartography.

Look at this order, for example

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si1994/Uksi_19940330_en_1.htm

This order varied the Surrey/Buckinghamshire/Berkshire/Greater London
boundary such that Berkshire and Greater London touch.  It did this by
just having some maps attached and saying "the parts [...] marked
[...] on the map [...] shall be transferred".

The map it refers to is available for inspection at government
offices, and hasn't even been published (the website has a little map
but that's not the same one).

-- 
Abi