Re: [talk-au] Administration level for unincorporated areas
Hi Brendan, Thanks for discussion and this sounds completely logical to do as you have suggested and also thank you for updating the Wiki Regards Ewen On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 at 15:29, Brendan Barnes wrote: > Thanks for the conversation. Sounds like the Aussie mappers are in clear > agreement so updated > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Land_and_boundaries#Administration_Levels > > > On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 at 15:40, Andrew Harvey > wrote: > >> I agree, indeed some are already mapped this way >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7032873 >> >> On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 at 15:20, cleary wrote: >> >>> >>> This was discussed about a decade ago in regard to unincorporated areas >>> in NSW and SA. The prevailing view was that unincorporated areas are local >>> government areas. They usually have a different administrative structure >>> (as distinct from the councils that administer local government in more >>> populated areas) but irrespective of administrative structure, they are >>> still areas which are subject to a form of local governance. An area does >>> not need a council to make it a local government area. >>> >>> "Unincorporated" means that the administrative body is not a legal >>> entity that can enter into contracts/debt etc like a company - usually >>> because the areas have insufficient population to support such >>> administrative structures. However decision making is often delegated to >>> the local level. In NSW, the large western unincorporated area used to be >>> administered by a board - I think it has changed and now has an >>> administrator although, as far as I know, Roads and Maritime Services >>> remains responsible for the roads in the area. Lord Howe Island is an >>> unincorporated area administered by a local board. In recent years, Sydney >>> Harbour (including much of Parramatta RIver) and Botany Bay have been >>> removed from local council controls and are now an unincorporated area of >>> NSW - I am uncertain of the administrative arrangements but I think it was >>> intended that state government authorities or administrators would exercise >>> necessary governance over the Harbour area. >>> >>> For example, if one views NSW Local Government Areas at >>> >>> https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fportal.spatial.nsw.gov.au%2Fserver%2Frest%2Fservices%2FNSW_Administrative_Boundaries_Theme%2FFeatureServer%2F8=sd >>> and then "left click" (or whatever works in your browser) when the >>> cursor is in Sydney Harbour, you will get responses such as >>> "LocalGovernmentArea: UNINCORPORATED - SYDNEY HARBOUR AREA" This URL can >>> be acccessed directly or via the NSW Spatial Services website. >>> >>> Unincorporated areas are local government areas, albeit with a different >>> form of governance. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2024, at 8:51 AM, Brendan Barnes wrote: >>> > Hi all, just seeing if there's consensus on what administration level >>> > unincorporated areas should have in Australia? >>> > >>> > In Victoria (and potentially other states), the unincorporated areas >>> > are administered by state-level statutory authorities and departments, >>> > so I'm thinking admin_level=6 to match equivalent local government >>> > authorities. >>> > >>> > ACT is an exception obviously, with the unincorporated area matching >>> > the territory border, so it takes on the higher order admin_level=4. >>> > >>> > >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Land_and_boundaries#Administration_Levels >>> > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_government_in_Australia#Unincorporated_areas >>> > ___ >>> > Talk-au mailing list >>> > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >>> >>> ___ >>> Talk-au mailing list >>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >>> >> ___ >> Talk-au mailing list >> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > -- Warm Regards Ewen Hill ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Administration level for unincorporated areas
Thanks for the conversation. Sounds like the Aussie mappers are in clear agreement so updated https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Land_and_boundaries#Administration_Levels On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 at 15:40, Andrew Harvey wrote: > I agree, indeed some are already mapped this way > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7032873 > > On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 at 15:20, cleary wrote: > >> >> This was discussed about a decade ago in regard to unincorporated areas >> in NSW and SA. The prevailing view was that unincorporated areas are local >> government areas. They usually have a different administrative structure >> (as distinct from the councils that administer local government in more >> populated areas) but irrespective of administrative structure, they are >> still areas which are subject to a form of local governance. An area does >> not need a council to make it a local government area. >> >> "Unincorporated" means that the administrative body is not a legal entity >> that can enter into contracts/debt etc like a company - usually because the >> areas have insufficient population to support such administrative >> structures. However decision making is often delegated to the local level. >> In NSW, the large western unincorporated area used to be administered by a >> board - I think it has changed and now has an administrator although, as >> far as I know, Roads and Maritime Services remains responsible for the >> roads in the area. Lord Howe Island is an unincorporated area administered >> by a local board. In recent years, Sydney Harbour (including much of >> Parramatta RIver) and Botany Bay have been removed from local council >> controls and are now an unincorporated area of NSW - I am uncertain of the >> administrative arrangements but I think it was intended that state >> government authorities or administrators would exercise necessary >> governance over the Harbour area. >> >> For example, if one views NSW Local Government Areas at >> >> https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fportal.spatial.nsw.gov.au%2Fserver%2Frest%2Fservices%2FNSW_Administrative_Boundaries_Theme%2FFeatureServer%2F8=sd >> and then "left click" (or whatever works in your browser) when the cursor >> is in Sydney Harbour, you will get responses such as "LocalGovernmentArea: >> UNINCORPORATED - SYDNEY HARBOUR AREA" This URL can be acccessed directly >> or via the NSW Spatial Services website. >> >> Unincorporated areas are local government areas, albeit with a different >> form of governance. >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 17 Jun 2024, at 8:51 AM, Brendan Barnes wrote: >> > Hi all, just seeing if there's consensus on what administration level >> > unincorporated areas should have in Australia? >> > >> > In Victoria (and potentially other states), the unincorporated areas >> > are administered by state-level statutory authorities and departments, >> > so I'm thinking admin_level=6 to match equivalent local government >> > authorities. >> > >> > ACT is an exception obviously, with the unincorporated area matching >> > the territory border, so it takes on the higher order admin_level=4. >> > >> > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Land_and_boundaries#Administration_Levels >> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_government_in_Australia#Unincorporated_areas >> > ___ >> > Talk-au mailing list >> > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> >> ___ >> Talk-au mailing list >> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Administration level for unincorporated areas
I agree, indeed some are already mapped this way https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7032873 On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 at 15:20, cleary wrote: > > This was discussed about a decade ago in regard to unincorporated areas in > NSW and SA. The prevailing view was that unincorporated areas are local > government areas. They usually have a different administrative structure > (as distinct from the councils that administer local government in more > populated areas) but irrespective of administrative structure, they are > still areas which are subject to a form of local governance. An area does > not need a council to make it a local government area. > > "Unincorporated" means that the administrative body is not a legal entity > that can enter into contracts/debt etc like a company - usually because the > areas have insufficient population to support such administrative > structures. However decision making is often delegated to the local level. > In NSW, the large western unincorporated area used to be administered by a > board - I think it has changed and now has an administrator although, as > far as I know, Roads and Maritime Services remains responsible for the > roads in the area. Lord Howe Island is an unincorporated area administered > by a local board. In recent years, Sydney Harbour (including much of > Parramatta RIver) and Botany Bay have been removed from local council > controls and are now an unincorporated area of NSW - I am uncertain of the > administrative arrangements but I think it was intended that state > government authorities or administrators would exercise necessary > governance over the Harbour area. > > For example, if one views NSW Local Government Areas at > > https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fportal.spatial.nsw.gov.au%2Fserver%2Frest%2Fservices%2FNSW_Administrative_Boundaries_Theme%2FFeatureServer%2F8=sd > and then "left click" (or whatever works in your browser) when the cursor > is in Sydney Harbour, you will get responses such as "LocalGovernmentArea: > UNINCORPORATED - SYDNEY HARBOUR AREA" This URL can be acccessed directly > or via the NSW Spatial Services website. > > Unincorporated areas are local government areas, albeit with a different > form of governance. > > > > > On Mon, 17 Jun 2024, at 8:51 AM, Brendan Barnes wrote: > > Hi all, just seeing if there's consensus on what administration level > > unincorporated areas should have in Australia? > > > > In Victoria (and potentially other states), the unincorporated areas > > are administered by state-level statutory authorities and departments, > > so I'm thinking admin_level=6 to match equivalent local government > > authorities. > > > > ACT is an exception obviously, with the unincorporated area matching > > the territory border, so it takes on the higher order admin_level=4. > > > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Land_and_boundaries#Administration_Levels > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_government_in_Australia#Unincorporated_areas > > ___ > > Talk-au mailing list > > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Administration level for unincorporated areas
This was discussed about a decade ago in regard to unincorporated areas in NSW and SA. The prevailing view was that unincorporated areas are local government areas. They usually have a different administrative structure (as distinct from the councils that administer local government in more populated areas) but irrespective of administrative structure, they are still areas which are subject to a form of local governance. An area does not need a council to make it a local government area. "Unincorporated" means that the administrative body is not a legal entity that can enter into contracts/debt etc like a company - usually because the areas have insufficient population to support such administrative structures. However decision making is often delegated to the local level. In NSW, the large western unincorporated area used to be administered by a board - I think it has changed and now has an administrator although, as far as I know, Roads and Maritime Services remains responsible for the roads in the area. Lord Howe Island is an unincorporated area administered by a local board. In recent years, Sydney Harbour (including much of Parramatta RIver) and Botany Bay have been removed from local council controls and are now an unincorporated area of NSW - I am uncertain of the administrative arrangements but I think it was intended that state government authorities or administrators would exercise necessary governance over the Harbour area. For example, if one views NSW Local Government Areas at https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fportal.spatial.nsw.gov.au%2Fserver%2Frest%2Fservices%2FNSW_Administrative_Boundaries_Theme%2FFeatureServer%2F8=sd and then "left click" (or whatever works in your browser) when the cursor is in Sydney Harbour, you will get responses such as "LocalGovernmentArea: UNINCORPORATED - SYDNEY HARBOUR AREA" This URL can be acccessed directly or via the NSW Spatial Services website. Unincorporated areas are local government areas, albeit with a different form of governance. On Mon, 17 Jun 2024, at 8:51 AM, Brendan Barnes wrote: > Hi all, just seeing if there's consensus on what administration level > unincorporated areas should have in Australia? > > In Victoria (and potentially other states), the unincorporated areas > are administered by state-level statutory authorities and departments, > so I'm thinking admin_level=6 to match equivalent local government > authorities. > > ACT is an exception obviously, with the unincorporated area matching > the territory border, so it takes on the higher order admin_level=4. > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Land_and_boundaries#Administration_Levels > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_government_in_Australia#Unincorporated_areas > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Administration level for unincorporated areas
I'm sure it is done, as I've seen it at a smaller scale in the USA, I'll say tagging in OSM in USA isn't done for what in USA we call "special districts." And these most specifically do NOT get tagged with any admin_level value (6 or otherwise) because they really aren't a government, what admin_level values are all about (how things fit together into a hierarchy). In the US state of Hawaii, for example, there is a "succinct" (flattened, but deliberately) quickly-at-the-state-level (the state-level division happens among each island, sorta like shires in Oz) sense of admin_level. It is acknowledged (by locals, people who live there, years of thinking about it in OSM) that there isn't a place in the admin_level hierarchy which are essentially, how people direct their trash collection or libraries to knit together. That's not government, that's people buying services in a district. If you really want to map those, I don't see why not (well, some might consider that task tedious, others might see great value in it...). Where the cable companies run service out to? Maybe that's useful, I don't know. When it comes to garbage collection districts, school districts (very rarely, I happen to know) and other such "private, commercial" activity...I suppose we can map these and rarely we do (everything from "mosquito abatement district" to "public library area served for this branch of the library district"). What might be next? Scouting Australia (I just made that up) districts? Imaginations run wild with possibilities, but this is OSM, after all. I'm not saying "no," (I am saying "tedious") I am saying do not merge or blend these into OSM's admin_level hierarchy. Well, here I go with my California perspective. You can call something like this a special district (these do emerge in OSM) you have to be specific how you might tag it so everybody knows it is a special district. I don't think what you are talking about here are "administrative values" as OSM uses key admin_level=*. Not at all. Or, maybe "in the USA" (and that is as far out as my perspective does or should go further). It is 100% possible there is something about how things truly are administratively are carved up by Parks Division and Alpine Resorts Division (as these things are actively, Crown-managed, we might say). That's government, and does seem like admin_level, and 6 isn't a wrong choice, it seems. These things are best not messed with by somebody a large ocean away, despite similarities in culture, common law, commerce, governmental structure, though things do diverge. So, I'm voicing my thoughts here, I'm also stepping aside as someone who is not local. It is a wobbler and could go either way; I'm not from there. Thanks for an interesting dialog; c-ya later. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Administration level for unincorporated areas
Thanks stevea for the considered reply. Much appreciated. In Australia (and specifically Victoria from my experience), unincorporated areas are not "surrounded by" a local government area implying the local government overlays them, though they do sometimes abut one or more neighbouring local government areas. They are state Crown land. I realise an easy observation for people is to say any unincorporated land is nothing or otherwise not declared, however there is some complexity in how they are individually administered by the state departments and statutory authorities: alpine resorts by ARV, French Island by DTP, Gabo Island by Parks, etc. These various agencies administer the day-to-day council-like roads, rates, and rubbish services of their respective unincorporated areas in the state, thus the suggestion of admin_level=6 to match neighbouring local government areas for consistency. On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 at 09:23, stevea wrote: > I absolutely realize that my experience is with the USA and not Australia, > but (in a VERY broad-brush way) the logical mappings between how federal=2, > state=4 and admin_level=6 is almost always the "sub-state / local-ish" > government authorities (in the USA it is almost always what we call a > "county," meaning a subdivision of the state, but counties often provide > much "more local" government services) in both countries is quite similar. > Importantly, for "unincorporated" parts of counties, these "fall under" an > admin_level=6 "area" at the level of the entirety of the county itself, not > with any specific smaller "boundary" (as these don't exist for > unincorporated areas) WITHIN the county. Usually / often, a node specifies > these unincorporated area, tagged place=* (and the value is often something > smaller, like hamlet or village). Please do not add an admin_level=6 tag > here, that's redundant tagging. > > Given the decade+ I've been facilitating admin_level in the USA (in wiki, > in discussions, in the map data...) I would say you are on the right track > with this "local government authorities get admin_level=6." This is true > for unincorporated areas (within counties in the USA): they are > "surrounded by" In the USA, for (usually incorporated) cities, these are > something else, and it is our convention to use admin_level=8 for such > cities (cities DO subordinate to the counties they are in, but in an > independent way, usually), which is to say that they "more directly" > subordinate to the state (at admin_level=4); a city that is an 8 is > geographically located in a county (6), but a city can also correctly be > said to subordinate more directly to a state (4) by virtue of it being the > state constitution and state statutes (the "California Government Code" in > my state) which crafts the legal framework for what a city "is" (within any > given state) and how it is chartered / gains its independence (as a > usually-incorporated entity independent of the state/county which it is > inside of). It seems Oz uses 9 for "locality borders," different than USA > uses 8 for cities (or towns which are incorporated), that's a minor quibble > that is a bit off-topic here. > > So, with unincorporated areas, they don't really get a boundary=* polygon > tagged with an admin_level, rather they are tagged with a place=* tag > (appropriate to population, amenities and/or relative hierarchy in the > region), but no specific admin_level tag, as they are simply "found inside > of" a polygon which is already (usually) tagged admin_level=6, and that is > what makes THEM 6, as well. These shouldn't get an additional polygon or > tag which tags them with admin_level=6, as that would be redundant with > their "county." Or whatever the word is in Australia, I think you call > them "Shire / Council" boundaries. > > If a shire / council boundary is tagged with admin_level=6 (and these are > found within Australian states tagged admin_level=4, which are in turn > found within the country-level boundary of Oz which is tagged > admin_level=2)...you've got it and are largely done. Unincorporated areas > don't really need to have their admin_level specified, as these areas are > quite likely very "unspecific" (and unincorporated) and their "surrounding > 6" (shire / council) already captures this semantic — nothing really to add > beyond that. If there ARE "locality borders" inside of a 6, tag them with > 9 and be done. But please don't tag "unincorporated, unspecified > boundaries" with anything, as it seems you really can't. The surrounding > shire / council already specifies the 6 you seem to be thinking of. Adding > a place=* node for an unincorporated community? Sure, we do that (in the > USA), too. But we don't add admin_level tags to those, as it isn't correct > to do so. > > I hope this helps! > > > On Jun 16, 2024, at 3:51 PM, Brendan Barnes wrote: > > Hi all, just seeing if there's consensus on what administration level > unincorporated areas should
Re: [talk-au] Administration level for unincorporated areas
I absolutely realize that my experience is with the USA and not Australia, but (in a VERY broad-brush way) the logical mappings between how federal=2, state=4 and admin_level=6 is almost always the "sub-state / local-ish" government authorities (in the USA it is almost always what we call a "county," meaning a subdivision of the state, but counties often provide much "more local" government services) in both countries is quite similar. Importantly, for "unincorporated" parts of counties, these "fall under" an admin_level=6 "area" at the level of the entirety of the county itself, not with any specific smaller "boundary" (as these don't exist for unincorporated areas) WITHIN the county. Usually / often, a node specifies these unincorporated area, tagged place=* (and the value is often something smaller, like hamlet or village). Please do not add an admin_level=6 tag here, that's redundant tagging. Given the decade+ I've been facilitating admin_level in the USA (in wiki, in discussions, in the map data...) I would say you are on the right track with this "local government authorities get admin_level=6." This is true for unincorporated areas (within counties in the USA): they are "surrounded by" In the USA, for (usually incorporated) cities, these are something else, and it is our convention to use admin_level=8 for such cities (cities DO subordinate to the counties they are in, but in an independent way, usually), which is to say that they "more directly" subordinate to the state (at admin_level=4); a city that is an 8 is geographically located in a county (6), but a city can also correctly be said to subordinate more directly to a state (4) by virtue of it being the state constitution and state statutes (the "California Government Code" in my state) which crafts the legal framework for what a city "is" (within any given state) and how it is chartered / gains its independence (as a usually-incorporated entity independent of the state/county which it is inside of). It seems Oz uses 9 for "locality borders," different than USA uses 8 for cities (or towns which are incorporated), that's a minor quibble that is a bit off-topic here. So, with unincorporated areas, they don't really get a boundary=* polygon tagged with an admin_level, rather they are tagged with a place=* tag (appropriate to population, amenities and/or relative hierarchy in the region), but no specific admin_level tag, as they are simply "found inside of" a polygon which is already (usually) tagged admin_level=6, and that is what makes THEM 6, as well. These shouldn't get an additional polygon or tag which tags them with admin_level=6, as that would be redundant with their "county." Or whatever the word is in Australia, I think you call them "Shire / Council" boundaries. If a shire / council boundary is tagged with admin_level=6 (and these are found within Australian states tagged admin_level=4, which are in turn found within the country-level boundary of Oz which is tagged admin_level=2)...you've got it and are largely done. Unincorporated areas don't really need to have their admin_level specified, as these areas are quite likely very "unspecific" (and unincorporated) and their "surrounding 6" (shire / council) already captures this semantic — nothing really to add beyond that. If there ARE "locality borders" inside of a 6, tag them with 9 and be done. But please don't tag "unincorporated, unspecified boundaries" with anything, as it seems you really can't. The surrounding shire / council already specifies the 6 you seem to be thinking of. Adding a place=* node for an unincorporated community? Sure, we do that (in the USA), too. But we don't add admin_level tags to those, as it isn't correct to do so. I hope this helps! On Jun 16, 2024, at 3:51 PM, Brendan Barnes wrote: > Hi all, just seeing if there's consensus on what administration level > unincorporated areas should have in Australia? > > In Victoria (and potentially other states), the unincorporated areas are > administered by state-level statutory authorities and departments, so I'm > thinking admin_level=6 to match equivalent local government authorities. > > ACT is an exception obviously, with the unincorporated area matching the > territory border, so it takes on the higher order admin_level=4. > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Land_and_boundaries#Administration_Levels > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_government_in_Australia#Unincorporated_areas ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Administration level for unincorporated areas
Hi all, just seeing if there's consensus on what administration level unincorporated areas should have in Australia? In Victoria (and potentially other states), the unincorporated areas are administered by state-level statutory authorities and departments, so I'm thinking admin_level=6 to match equivalent local government authorities. ACT is an exception obviously, with the unincorporated area matching the territory border, so it takes on the higher order admin_level=4. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Land_and_boundaries#Administration_Levels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_government_in_Australia#Unincorporated_areas ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
