Re: [Talk-GB] Checking UK Towns

[jc...@mail.com]

On 30/01/2019 15:08, Gregory Marler wrote:
> In a lot of cases the towns nicely relate to parish wards (admin_level=10).

I understood admin_level=10 was for whole parishes, not parish wards. Surely 
parish wards should be boundary=political just like district and county 
electoral wards/divisions?

I also agree with Colin, admin_centre should only be associated with 
administrative boundaries not political ones.

Jez C

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Checking UK Towns

[Mark Goodge]

On 30/01/2019 16:00, Tom Hughes wrote:


The fundamental problem with this, as Jerry has just said, is that
many towns in the UK have no defined boundary.

Even where there is an administrative entity there is no guarantee
that it's boundary equates to what most people would view as the
boundary of the town - it may under or overstate things.


One useful thing here is the ONS concept of a "Built Up Area". That aims 
to give the normal human name of a defined place - for example, 
Mansfield and Maidenhead are both in the list, and mean what someone 
living there would expect them to mean. And it has subdivisions for 
major settlements - for example, the BUA of Greater London includes 
BUASDs of Bromley and Camden.


Shapefiles are available from the ONS Geography website, and are OGL, so 
they're compatible with OSM.


The downside of ONS BUA data is that it's only updated once per census, 
so the current dataset is now a bit out of date - it doesn't take 
account of new developments on the edge of existing settlements, for 
example. But, as a simple source of names, it's very valuable. And 
alterations to boundaries can be mapped on the ground, provided you've 
got an existing boundary to work with.



Equally there is no clear way of even determining what is, or is
not, a town. Just a variety of rules-of-thumb...


As far as local government is concerned, there is a defined meaning of a 
town. That is, any settlement which has a town council (eg, Evesham, 
Newmarket). And, for larger settlements, the word "town" is what most 
people would call what is, officially, a non-metropolitan borough (eg, 
Bromsgrove, Ipswich).


More generally, while there's no single definition of a town, it can be 
reasonably assumed to be the default terminology for any built-up area 
unless you know for certain that it isn't a town (eg, because it's a 
city, or it has a parish council, or is too small to have a council at 
all).


Mark

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Checking UK Towns

[Colin Smale]

I also have a couple of observations about these changes. 

1) Sometimes an admin_centre is being added to a boundary=political
(e.g. parliamentary constituencies, electoral wards). I am not sure this
is appropriate. 

2) There are multiple definitions of "town", and I don't know which
definition Gregory is using here for place=town. A parish council can
simply call itself a town council if it so resolves. This is independent
of other definitions of "town" based on population, market charter,
letters patent etc. 

3) Unparished areas are recorded and numbered in the governments GSS
coding system (codes start with E43). Maybe we should follow their level
of (dis)aggregation w.r.t. multiple contiguous parishes? Do they
possibly qualify as statistical areas?

Colin 

On 2019-01-30 18:01, Will Phillips wrote:

> I've already raised concerns I have in a changeset comment about these edits 
> adding admin_level=10 administrative boundary relations for voids between 
> civil parishes. They are tagged with designation=non-civil_parish. This has 
> been discussed on this list previously. My main objection is that these areas 
> aren't really administrative entities at all. Gregory correctly points out 
> they are sometimes used for statistical purposes, but I don't think that 
> justifies tagging them as administrative.
> 
> Another concern is that these admin_level=10 voids often include several 
> former civil parishes, so they cover a wider area than the name given to them 
> suggests. An example is Beeston: 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9246079
> This new relation covers five former civil parishes (Attenborough, Beeston, 
> Bramcote, Chilwell and Toton) and so includes a wider area than what is 
> usually considered to be Beeston. If Beeston is mapped as an area I think it 
> would be better to use something closer to the area of the former civil 
> parish.
> 
> Gregory has already agreed to think about alternative tagging for this, but I 
> thought it was worth raising here, in case other people have any thoughts.
> 
> Cheers,
> Will
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Checking UK Towns

[Will Phillips]

I've already raised concerns I have in a changeset comment about these 
edits adding admin_level=10 administrative boundary relations for voids 
between civil parishes. They are tagged with 
designation=non-civil_parish. This has been discussed on this list 
previously. My main objection is that these areas aren't really 
administrative entities at all. Gregory correctly points out they are 
sometimes used for statistical purposes, but I don't think that 
justifies tagging them as administrative.


Another concern is that these admin_level=10 voids often include several 
former civil parishes, so they cover a wider area than the name given to 
them suggests. An example is Beeston: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9246079
This new relation covers five former civil parishes (Attenborough, 
Beeston, Bramcote, Chilwell and Toton) and so includes a wider area than 
what is usually considered to be Beeston. If Beeston is mapped as an 
area I think it would be better to use something closer to the area of 
the former civil parish.


Gregory has already agreed to think about alternative tagging for this, 
but I thought it was worth raising here, in case other people have any 
thoughts.


Cheers,
Will

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Checking UK Towns

[Tom Hughes]

On 30/01/2019 15:08, Gregory Marler wrote:

A small amount of my time has been funded by Open Cage Data to check 
towns in the UK. Ideally it should be possible to get a town as both a 
node and a relation.


The fundamental problem with this, as Jerry has just said, is that
many towns in the UK have no defined boundary.

Even where there is an administrative entity there is no guarantee
that it's boundary equates to what most people would view as the
boundary of the town - it may under or overstate things.

Equally there is no clear way of even determining what is, or is
not, a town. Just a variety of rules-of-thumb...

This has all been discussed a number of times before ;-)

If you want a challenge look at my local area - it's unparished
so the smallest administrative unit is the district council:

  https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2677978

Looking at the builtup area on the right hand side along the Lea
Valley how many places are there, what are their boundaries, and
what type is each of them ;-)

Hilariously in doing that I've just noticed a town (well that's
what wikipedia says it is anyway) that is completely missing
from OpenStreetMap... Waltham Cross should be somewhere below
Cheshunt and west of Waltham Abbey.

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Checking UK Towns

[SK53]

A few points:

* I believe you should complete the relevant

organised edit page on the wiki.
* I think any use of admin_level=11 or indeed any use of admin_level at all
for un-parished areas needed to be discussed up front. Places like
Mansfield, Maidenhead etc  simply do not exist as administrative entities.
To represent them as such is erroneous.
* In the case of the two Ashfields and Mablethorpe/Sutton-on-the-Sea there
is a single unparished area so how can someone verify the boundary?
* Saxilby ought to be a village
* Sutton-on-the-Sea probably ought to be a village; not sure about
Mablethorpe.
* Banstead as a town is rather marginal. Unlike Epsom and Ewell which were
towns before London grew, Banstead is more a London exurb. I'd guess
village or suburb may be just as appropriate.
* I'd have anticipated Dorking's W boundary to be pretty much follow the
line of the former Urban District which wiggles about more than the one you
mapped.
* I don't think place=town should be duplicated on the node and the
relation, one or the other (it makes for awkward processing for what should
be very simple queries: how many towns in East Anglia?). I do realise that
associating a town with a boundary is the objective, but I believe there
should be a way which doesn't break "one feature one element".

Regards,

Jerry

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 15:09, Gregory Marler  wrote:

> You might spot my recent map edits with a changeset such as...
> "*Checking data and relations for towns in Lincolnshire. This changeset
> forms part of paid work to improve OpenStreetMap data. #UKTownCheck
> #OrganisedEditing*"
>
> A small amount of my time has been funded by Open Cage Data to check towns
> in the UK. Ideally it should be possible to get a town as both a node and a
> relation.
> I've been going through a list of towns where this isn't the case. I've
> been doing a single county per changeset to avoid it being a mess to follow.
>
>
> In a lot of cases the towns nicely relate to parish wards
> (admin_level=10). Sometimes I just need to add the town node as an
> admin_centre member of the relation. Other times the "outer" parts of the
> relation are not in order.
> In some cases, the town has a distinct area but not a simple parish ward
> (the previous parish might have ceased to be). I have created some
> relations with boundary=place, place=town, admin_level=11.
> I've even found some town nodes that are complete tagging for the
> renderer. They should have been something like place=suburb.
>
>
> So far it's been very insightful to do this for several areas around the
> UK. I don't think I'll manage the whole country within the funded time. I
> intended to properly report on what i've done and what I've found.
>
> Gregory.
>
>
> --
> Gregory Marler
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Checking UK Towns

[Gregory Marler]

You might spot my recent map edits with a changeset such as...
"*Checking data and relations for towns in Lincolnshire. This changeset
forms part of paid work to improve OpenStreetMap data. #UKTownCheck
#OrganisedEditing*"

A small amount of my time has been funded by Open Cage Data to check towns
in the UK. Ideally it should be possible to get a town as both a node and a
relation.
I've been going through a list of towns where this isn't the case. I've
been doing a single county per changeset to avoid it being a mess to follow.


In a lot of cases the towns nicely relate to parish wards (admin_level=10).
Sometimes I just need to add the town node as an admin_centre member of the
relation. Other times the "outer" parts of the relation are not in order.
In some cases, the town has a distinct area but not a simple parish ward
(the previous parish might have ceased to be). I have created some
relations with boundary=place, place=town, admin_level=11.
I've even found some town nodes that are complete tagging for the renderer.
They should have been something like place=suburb.


So far it's been very insightful to do this for several areas around the
UK. I don't think I'll manage the whole country within the funded time. I
intended to properly report on what i've done and what I've found.

Gregory.


-- 
Gregory Marler
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb