Re: [Talk-GB] Authorities, boundaries and admin-levels
On 13 Jun 2009, at 18:41, Peter Childs wrote: 2009/6/13 Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com: Whats the simplest way of adding a boundary? I notice that Medway does not have one, I know ruthley where it should be, but have no idea of how to go about adding the relevant relation/way. I'm fine adding Roads and smaller stuff but the boundary stuff just throws me. It is better to use a relation for the boundary rather than way tags which used to be the only way to do it. Add the appropriate existing ways (rivers/roads etc) to a new relation. You may need to split roads/ rivers where the boundary diverges. For some sections of the boundary you will need to add new ways (where it goes across fields). I just add a 'note=administrative boundary' tag to those ways. The only source of data we can legally use for the boundary to by knowledge is the NPE maps base which shows boundaries as a dotted line if you are lucky and if they have not moved in the past 50 years. I also check wikipedia as a cross check Given that Medway is less than 50 years old that could be a problem. I have added a start to the Medway boundary relation for the coastal section. There are some boundaries on NPE maps on the inland section that relate to the route of the current unitary boundary however it is not very clear. Regards, Peter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EnglandMedway.png) and then the official council website to see if there is general agreement on the shape and extent. It isn't perfect - to be perfect our democratic government will need to persuade the OS to give its citizens the boundaries by which it is governed. Until now lets do the best we can and when people say they are wrong we will ask them to provide the information to correct it! Btw, OSM and the UK Boundaries project got a mention on the Guardians data blog yesterday. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/jun/11/opensourc ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Authorities, boundaries and admin-levels
On 13 Jun 2009, at 09:30, Peter Childs wrote: 2009/6/11 Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk: And here is the current OSM guidance:- http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:admin_level#admin_level In order to tie in with NUTS and with guidance for other countries within OSM we might want to do the following for England (Scotland and Wales would be similar but would skip some levels):- UK (admin_level=2) England/Wales/Scotland (admin_level=4) English regions (North East, East of England etc) (also admin_level=4 as per NUTS) Ceremonial counties - where they exist (admin_level= 5) County Councils/Unitary Authorities (admin-level=6) Districts (admin-level=8) districts / London boroughs / metropolitan boroughs. Whats the simplest way of adding a boundary? I notice that Medway does not have one, I know ruthley where it should be, but have no idea of how to go about adding the relevant relation/way. I'm fine adding Roads and smaller stuff but the boundary stuff just throws me. It is better to use a relation for the boundary rather than way tags which used to be the only way to do it. Add the appropriate existing ways (rivers/roads etc) to a new relation. You may need to split roads/ rivers where the boundary diverges. For some sections of the boundary you will need to add new ways (where it goes across fields). I just add a 'note=administrative boundary' tag to those ways. The only source of data we can legally use for the boundary to by knowledge is the NPE maps base which shows boundaries as a dotted line if you are lucky and if they have not moved in the past 50 years. I also check wikipedia as a cross check (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EnglandMedway.png ) and then the official council website to see if there is general agreement on the shape and extent. It isn't perfect - to be perfect our democratic government will need to persuade the OS to give its citizens the boundaries by which it is governed. Until now lets do the best we can and when people say they are wrong we will ask them to provide the information to correct it! Btw, OSM and the UK Boundaries project got a mention on the Guardians data blog yesterday. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/jun/11/opensourc Regards, Peter Peter. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Authorities, boundaries and admin-levels
2009/6/13 Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com: On 13 Jun 2009, at 09:30, Peter Childs wrote: 2009/6/11 Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk: And here is the current OSM guidance:- http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:admin_level#admin_level In order to tie in with NUTS and with guidance for other countries within OSM we might want to do the following for England (Scotland and Wales would be similar but would skip some levels):- UK (admin_level=2) England/Wales/Scotland (admin_level=4) English regions (North East, East of England etc) (also admin_level=4 as per NUTS) Ceremonial counties - where they exist (admin_level= 5) County Councils/Unitary Authorities (admin-level=6) Districts (admin-level=8) districts / London boroughs / metropolitan boroughs. Whats the simplest way of adding a boundary? I notice that Medway does not have one, I know ruthley where it should be, but have no idea of how to go about adding the relevant relation/way. I'm fine adding Roads and smaller stuff but the boundary stuff just throws me. It is better to use a relation for the boundary rather than way tags which used to be the only way to do it. Add the appropriate existing ways (rivers/roads etc) to a new relation. You may need to split roads/rivers where the boundary diverges. For some sections of the boundary you will need to add new ways (where it goes across fields). I just add a 'note=administrative boundary' tag to those ways. The only source of data we can legally use for the boundary to by knowledge is the NPE maps base which shows boundaries as a dotted line if you are lucky and if they have not moved in the past 50 years. I also check wikipedia as a cross check (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EnglandMedway.png) and then the official council website to see if there is general agreement on the shape and extent. It isn't perfect - to be perfect our democratic government will need to persuade the OS to give its citizens the boundaries by which it is governed. Until now lets do the best we can and when people say they are wrong we will ask them to provide the information to correct it! Btw, OSM and the UK Boundaries project got a mention on the Guardians data blog yesterday. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/jun/11/opensourc Regards, Peter Peter. I think there is value in also tagging the way with at least boundary=administrative, especially ways that would otherwise only have the relation. The relation model does not completely surpass the old tagging scheme. -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Authorities, boundaries and admin-levels
2009/6/13 Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com: On 13 Jun 2009, at 09:30, Peter Childs wrote: 2009/6/11 Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk: And here is the current OSM guidance:- http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:admin_level#admin_level In order to tie in with NUTS and with guidance for other countries within OSM we might want to do the following for England (Scotland and Wales would be similar but would skip some levels):- UK (admin_level=2) England/Wales/Scotland (admin_level=4) English regions (North East, East of England etc) (also admin_level=4 as per NUTS) Ceremonial counties - where they exist (admin_level= 5) County Councils/Unitary Authorities (admin-level=6) Districts (admin-level=8) districts / London boroughs / metropolitan boroughs. Whats the simplest way of adding a boundary? I notice that Medway does not have one, I know ruthley where it should be, but have no idea of how to go about adding the relevant relation/way. I'm fine adding Roads and smaller stuff but the boundary stuff just throws me. It is better to use a relation for the boundary rather than way tags which used to be the only way to do it. Add the appropriate existing ways (rivers/roads etc) to a new relation. You may need to split roads/rivers where the boundary diverges. For some sections of the boundary you will need to add new ways (where it goes across fields). I just add a 'note=administrative boundary' tag to those ways. The only source of data we can legally use for the boundary to by knowledge is the NPE maps base which shows boundaries as a dotted line if you are lucky and if they have not moved in the past 50 years. I also check wikipedia as a cross check Given that Medway is less than 50 years old that could be a problem. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EnglandMedway.png) and then the official council website to see if there is general agreement on the shape and extent. It isn't perfect - to be perfect our democratic government will need to persuade the OS to give its citizens the boundaries by which it is governed. Until now lets do the best we can and when people say they are wrong we will ask them to provide the information to correct it! Btw, OSM and the UK Boundaries project got a mention on the Guardians data blog yesterday. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/jun/11/opensourc ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Authorities, boundaries and admin-levels
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.comwrote: *UK *England/Wales/Scotland *English regions (North East, East of England etc) *Ceremonial counties/unitaries *Districts *Parishes/Wards etc (but lets deal with the big ones first) Ceremonial counties are not part of the administrative hierarchy, they form a separate hierarchy - the border between ceremonial Durham and ceremonial North Yorkshire goes through the Stockton-on-Tees unitary authority along the river. Do you mean metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties? The mention of NUTS worries me. In England it doesn't encode the actual administrative hierarchy anyway and classifies this area as UKC... North East England UKC1... Tees Valley and Durham UKC11... Hartlepool and Stockton-on-Tees I trust we aren't going to see agglomerations like 'Hartlepool and Stockton' appear in the database instead of the actual administrative regions. -- Abi ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Authorities, boundaries and admin-levels
On 11 Jun 2009, at 07:49, Abigail Brady wrote: On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: *UK *England/Wales/Scotland *English regions (North East, East of England etc) *Ceremonial counties/unitaries *Districts *Parishes/Wards etc (but lets deal with the big ones first) Ceremonial counties are not part of the administrative hierarchy, they form a separate hierarchy Good point. How about tagging ceremonial counties as 'type=boundary' and 'boundary=ceremonial'? We can use the admin-level for county to indicate that it is a ceremonial county as distinct from a ceremonial region (if there is such a thing). We could then also have 'boundary=historical county' and other inventions for defunct administrative boundaries. the border between ceremonial Durham and ceremonial North Yorkshire goes through the Stockton-on-Tees unitary authority along the river. I have added a new boundary for the ceremonial county as distinct to the unitary which I think is correct:- County Durham (ceremonial) http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/156050 Durham (unitary) http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/88067 Do you mean metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties? possibly! Would that be approriate? The mention of NUTS worries me. In England it doesn't encode the actual administrative hierarchy anyway and classifies this area as UKC... North East England UKC1... Tees Valley and Durham UKC11... Hartlepool and Stockton-on-Tees I trust we aren't going to see agglomerations like 'Hartlepool and Stockton' appear in the database instead of the actual administrative regions. Personally I am interested in having good boundaries for the regions, the ceremonial counties and the administrative units (county councils, unitary council etc). Hartlepool and Stockton-on-Tees are separate unitaries and have separate boundaries which I think is correct. For administrative purposes I believe that Harlepool is in the North West which is in England which is in the UK. Hartlepool is also in the ceremonial county of County Durham and also possibly in the UKC11 area but those are different and outside the core 'boundary=administrative' structure. Possibly someone might like to add the UKC11 boundary, but that is not one I have come across and doesn't appear to be in the hierarchy we are talking about. If NUTS does this then possibly it is not appropriate. It should be said that the area we are talking about is one of the more complex in the UK given that the counties/unitaries don't fit neatly into a single region. Regards, Peter -- Abi ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Authorities, boundaries and admin-levels
And here is the current OSM guidance:- http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:admin_level#admin_level In order to tie in with NUTS and with guidance for other countries within OSM we might want to do the following for England (Scotland and Wales would be similar but would skip some levels):- UK (admin_level=2) England/Wales/Scotland (admin_level=4) English regions (North East, East of England etc) (also admin_level=4 as per NUTS) Ceremonial counties - where they exist (admin_level= 5) County Councils/Unitary Authorities (admin-level=6) Districts (admin-level=8) districts / London boroughs / metropolitan boroughs. These suggestions look to me to retain the existing levels while adding regions at 4, and ceremonial counties at 5. Reading the information about NUTS it seems sensible to have regions at the same level as the Wales/England/Scotland admin level, though before reading that I was tempted to suggest we move them to 3 to distinguish them. We could still do that of course and have admin_levels 3 and 4 equating to one NUTS level. Looking at the link about the current admin levels I noticed Turkey in the table just above UK and they have the NUT1 to 5 (now I understand NUTS1 to NUTS3 and LAU1/LAU2) at different admin levels to what we're proposing. I think it would make sense if we could standardise across Europe if we are going to do anything with NUTS levels but I'm not sure how we'd manage that. A quick scroll and Spain, Sweden, Hungary, Germany and Czech Republic all seem to have different NUTS levels implementations. Perhaps it is the case that NUTS levels, designed mainly for statistics, does have different admin level mappings in different countries? In fact that is what the table here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUTS#Levels suggests is the case, so I think we let other countries worry about their admin levels and concentrate on ours. So, yes, as this proposal doesn't seem to change anything, but just adds regions and ceremonial counties at what look like sensible places, I think it looks OK. Although I see the later post about ceremonial and use the same admin level as county, which looks OK too. Ed ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
