Re: [Talk-GB] Metropolitan counties and other boundaries
It might be good to look at how My Society's MapIt api handles the levels. I had to use that very quickly and then found myself writing lots of edge queries to get the right level in the heirachy. On 20 Feb 2014 19:53, "Colin Smale" wrote: > Hi Robert, > > On 2014-02-20 20:17, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > > On 20 February 2014 11:34, Colin Smale wrote: > > one thing I noticed is that there are two schools of thought regarding > Metropolitan Districts. These are a subdivision of Metropolitan Counties, > of which there are six: Greater Manchester, Merseyside, South Yorkshire, > Tyne and Wear, West Midlands and West Yorkshire. > > I would like to normalise this tagging, and looking at the current usage > above and the wiki[1], propose that the Metropolitan Counties become > boundary=ceremonial, and the Metropolitan Districts become > boundary=administrative, admin_level=8. > > If the "Metropolitan Districts" have essentially the same > administrative powers/functions as a unitary authority, then I think > they should be tagged with the same admin_level (i.e. 6) to reflect > that fact. We'd then be consistently using admin_level=6 for the > highest tier of local government. If they are slighty different (i.e. > some powers rest elsewhere) then maybe we could consider using > admin_level=7 instead. As far as I can tell, they're definitely not > similar to the district councils under a normal county council, so iI > think it would be better to avoid using admin_level=8. > > Sounds reasonable to me. They are missing various powers of a true UA, > which are organised at a "Metropolitan County" level in "joint boards". So > admin_level=7 would reflect that intermediate level. > > Ceremonial counties are a completely separate division of the country into > Lord Lieutenancy areas -- see > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremonial_counties_of_England . So in OSM > I'd expect to find these in existence over the whole country, not just for > the Metropolitan Counties. Since they have no administrative > local-government function, I wouldn't expect them to need or have an > admin_level tag. Sometimes they'll be coterminous with a normal county > (i.e. the area controlled by a County Council). In which case, I'd expect > to see two different relations in OSM, one for each entity. > > That is how lieutenancies/ceremonial counties are currently tagged - > boundary=ceremonial, no admin_level. Indeed, if coterminous with an > administrative county, then two relations are needed. I believe many > already exist like this. See: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/English_Counties (which I have tried > to keep up-to-date) for an overview. It looks like there are still a few > missing - I will work on that. > > To further complicate things, it seems that in a relatively recent > development, there is now a "Greater Manchester Statutory City Region" with > a "Greater Manchester Combined Authority" that does have some significant > administrative functions. See > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Manchester_Statutory_City_Region . > This region is coterminous with the Greater Manchester Ceremonial County, > but is a different entity. As above, I'd expect the two identical > boundaries to have separate OSM relations. One with boundary=ceremonial and > no admin_level tag, and the other with boundary=administrative and an > appropriate admin_level. The admin_level value needs to be greater than 5 > (English Regions) and less than the value we've used for the individual > borough/city areas. So presumably we wouldn't be able to use admin_level=6 > for the "Metropolitan Districts" within Greater Manchester, so 6 can be > used by the "Combined Authority". > > Hmm, I didn't realise that... Wikipedia suggests it may be modelled on the > Greater London Authority, which limited, well-defined powers. There doesn't > seem to be a relation for the GLA - but there is one (65606) at > admin_level=6 called "London". > > Whether we should use 7 rather than 8 for the "Metropolitan Districts" > would, I think, depend on how much their powers/responsibility are similar > to a normal districts within a normal county, and how much they retain more > of the character of a Unitary Authority or other "Metropolitan Districts". > Robert. > > Colin > > ___ > 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] Metropolitan counties and other boundaries
Hi The West Midlands is administered as a unit for fire police and public transport rather than individually by the 7 constituent LAs. I don't know where that places it, but use the information as you see fit Regards Brian On 20 February 2014 11:34, Colin Smale wrote: > Hi, > > In the last couple of years I have put in a lot of hours maintaining the > UK's admin boundaries in OSM. Having started in Kent (home territory) I > have gradually been fanning out to cover more and more of the country. > Although there is a lot of consistency in the tagging, one thing I noticed > is that there are two schools of thought regarding Metropolitan Districts. > These are a subdivision of Metropolitan Counties, of which there are six: > Greater Manchester, Merseyside, South Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear, West > Midlands and West Yorkshire. > > The Metropolitan Counties still exist in law, and certain functions (e.g. > Fire&Rescue, public transport) are often governed at that level. The > Councils no longer exist as bodies however. The Metropolitan Districts > (which are styled as Boroughs or Cities) are therefore effectively 99% the > same as "unitary authorities". > > In the situation between 1974 and 1986 the tagging would be obvious: both > the County and the District would be boundary=administrative, with > admin_level=6 for the county and admin_level=8 for the districts. In OSM, > things have diverged a bit since then, and proper Unitary Authorities are > tagged as admin_level=6 putting them on the same level as Non-Metropolitan > Counties. > > The current situation in OSM is: > > admin_level > County county tag county district > GM ceremonial n/a 8 > Merseyside ceremonial n/a 8 > S Yorksadministrative 6 8 > T&Wear ceremonial n/a 6 > W Mids administrative 6 8 > W Yorksceremonial n/a 8 > > I would like to normalise this tagging, and looking at the current usage > above and the wiki[1], propose that the Metropolitan Counties become > boundary=ceremonial, and the Metropolitan Districts become > boundary=administrative, admin_level=8. > > Are there any objections or other comments? If not I will make the changes > in a few days' time. > > By the way, I have been creating a wiki page to try to give an overview of > UK boundary tagging at [2]. Please look at it - any comments, corrections, > additions etc are most welcome, and if people feel it's useful the content > can be moved into a more "obvious" place in the wiki. > > Thanks, > Colin > > [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Admin_level > [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Csmale/ukboundaries > > > > > > > ___ > 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] Metropolitan counties and other boundaries
Hi Robert, On 2014-02-20 20:17, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > On 20 February 2014 11:34, Colin Smale wrote: > >> one thing I noticed is that there are two schools of thought regarding >> Metropolitan Districts. These are a subdivision of Metropolitan Counties, of >> which there are six: Greater Manchester, Merseyside, South Yorkshire, Tyne >> and Wear, West Midlands and West Yorkshire. > >> I would like to normalise this tagging, and looking at the current usage >> above and the wiki[1], propose that the Metropolitan Counties become >> boundary=ceremonial, and the Metropolitan Districts become >> boundary=administrative, admin_level=8. > > If the "Metropolitan Districts" have essentially the same > administrative powers/functions as a unitary authority, then I think > they should be tagged with the same admin_level (i.e. 6) to reflect > that fact. We'd then be consistently using admin_level=6 for the > highest tier of local government. If they are slighty different (i.e. > some powers rest elsewhere) then maybe we could consider using > admin_level=7 instead. As far as I can tell, they're definitely not > similar to the district councils under a normal county council, so iI > think it would be better to avoid using admin_level=8. Sounds reasonable to me. They are missing various powers of a true UA, which are organised at a "Metropolitan County" level in "joint boards". So admin_level=7 would reflect that intermediate level. > Ceremonial counties are a completely separate division of the country into > Lord Lieutenancy areas -- see > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremonial_counties_of_England [1] . So in OSM > I'd expect to find these in existence over the whole country, not just for > the Metropolitan Counties. Since they have no administrative local-government > function, I wouldn't expect them to need or have an admin_level tag. > Sometimes they'll be coterminous with a normal county (i.e. the area > controlled by a County Council). In which case, I'd expect to see two > different relations in OSM, one for each entity. That is how lieutenancies/ceremonial counties are currently tagged - boundary=ceremonial, no admin_level. Indeed, if coterminous with an administrative county, then two relations are needed. I believe many already exist like this. See: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/English_Counties (which I have tried to keep up-to-date) for an overview. It looks like there are still a few missing - I will work on that. > To further complicate things, it seems that in a relatively recent > development, there is now a "Greater Manchester Statutory City Region" with a > "Greater Manchester Combined Authority" that does have some significant > administrative functions. See > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Manchester_Statutory_City_Region [2] . > This region is coterminous with the Greater Manchester Ceremonial County, but > is a different entity. As above, I'd expect the two identical boundaries to > have separate OSM relations. One with boundary=ceremonial and no admin_level > tag, and the other with boundary=administrative and an appropriate > admin_level. The admin_level value needs to be greater than 5 (English > Regions) and less than the value we've used for the individual borough/city > areas. So presumably we wouldn't be able to use admin_level=6 for the > "Metropolitan Districts" within Greater Manchester, so 6 can be used by the > "Combined Authority". Hmm, I didn't realise that... Wikipedia suggests it may be modelled on the Greater London Authority, which limited, well-defined powers. There doesn't seem to be a relation for the GLA - but there is one (65606) at admin_level=6 called "London". > Whether we should use 7 rather than 8 for the "Metropolitan Districts" would, > I think, depend on how much their powers/responsibility are similar to a > normal districts within a normal county, and how much they retain more of the > character of a Unitary Authority or other "Metropolitan Districts". Robert. Colin Links: -- [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremonial_counties_of_England [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Manchester_Statutory_City_Region ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Metropolitan counties and other boundaries
On 20 February 2014 11:34, Colin Smale wrote: > one thing I noticed is that > there are two schools of thought regarding Metropolitan Districts. These are > a subdivision of Metropolitan Counties, of which there are six: Greater > Manchester, Merseyside, South Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear, West Midlands and > West Yorkshire. > I would like to normalise this tagging, and looking at the current usage > above and the wiki[1], propose that the Metropolitan Counties become > boundary=ceremonial, and the Metropolitan Districts become > boundary=administrative, admin_level=8. If the "Metropolitan Districts" have essentially the same administrative powers/functions as a unitary authority, then I think they should be tagged with the same admin_level (i.e. 6) to reflect that fact. We'd then be consistently using admin_level=6 for the highest tier of local government. If they are slighty different (i.e. some powers rest elsewhere) then maybe we could consider using admin_level=7 instead. As far as I can tell, they're definitely not similar to the district councils under a normal county council, so iI think it would be better to avoid using admin_level=8. Ceremonial counties are a completely separate division of the country into Lord Lieutenancy areas -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremonial_counties_of_England . So in OSM I'd expect to find these in existence over the whole country, not just for the Metropolitan Counties. Since they have no administrative local-government function, I wouldn't expect them to need or have an admin_level tag. Sometimes they'll be coterminous with a normal county (i.e. the area controlled by a County Council). In which case, I'd expect to see two different relations in OSM, one for each entity. To further complicate things, it seems that in a relatively recent development, there is now a "Greater Manchester Statutory City Region" with a "Greater Manchester Combined Authority" that does have some significant administrative functions. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Manchester_Statutory_City_Region . This region is coterminous with the Greater Manchester Ceremonial County, but is a different entity. As above, I'd expect the two identical boundaries to have separate OSM relations. One with boundary=ceremonial and no admin_level tag, and the other with boundary=administrative and an appropriate admin_level. The admin_level value needs to be greater than 5 (English Regions) and less than the value we've used for the individual borough/city areas. So presumably we wouldn't be able to use admin_level=6 for the "Metropolitan Districts" within Greater Manchester, so 6 can be used by the "Combined Authority". Whether we should use 7 rather than 8 for the "Metropolitan Districts" would, I think, depend on how much their powers/responsibility are similar to a normal districts within a normal county, and how much they retain more of the character of a Unitary Authority or other "Metropolitan Districts". Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Metropolitan counties and other boundaries
Hi, In the last couple of years I have put in a lot of hours maintaining the UK's admin boundaries in OSM. Having started in Kent (home territory) I have gradually been fanning out to cover more and more of the country. Although there is a lot of consistency in the tagging, one thing I noticed is that there are two schools of thought regarding Metropolitan Districts. These are a subdivision of Metropolitan Counties, of which there are six: Greater Manchester, Merseyside, South Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear, West Midlands and West Yorkshire. The Metropolitan Counties still exist in law, and certain functions (e.g. Fire&Rescue, public transport) are often governed at that level. The Councils no longer exist as bodies however. The Metropolitan Districts (which are styled as Boroughs or Cities) are therefore effectively 99% the same as "unitary authorities". In the situation between 1974 and 1986 the tagging would be obvious: both the County and the District would be boundary=administrative, with admin_level=6 for the county and admin_level=8 for the districts. In OSM, things have diverged a bit since then, and proper Unitary Authorities are tagged as admin_level=6 putting them on the same level as Non-Metropolitan Counties. The current situation in OSM is: admin_level County county tag county district GM ceremonial n/a 8 Merseyside ceremonial n/a 8 S Yorks administrative 6 8 T&Wear ceremonial n/a 6 W Mids administrative 6 8 W Yorks ceremonial n/a 8 I would like to normalise this tagging, and looking at the current usage above and the wiki[1], propose that the Metropolitan Counties become boundary=ceremonial, and the Metropolitan Districts become boundary=administrative, admin_level=8. Are there any objections or other comments? If not I will make the changes in a few days' time. By the way, I have been creating a wiki page to try to give an overview of UK boundary tagging at [2]. Please look at it - any comments, corrections, additions etc are most welcome, and if people feel it's useful the content can be moved into a more "obvious" place in the wiki. Thanks, Colin [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Admin_level [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Csmale/ukboundaries ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
