On 21-Dec-16 03:11 PM, Andrew Davidson wrote:
On 2016-12-21 14:53, Warin wrote:
On 21-Dec-16 11:38 AM, Andrew Davidson wrote:
On 2016-12-21 11:01, Warin wrote:
So the governance is irrelevant to the issue ... the area is
managed by
'something' ..that 'something' should be treated the same way in OSM
for the same function.
The area is managed by the State of New South Wales and there is
already a admin_level 4 boundary marking that out.
Taken to the extreme councils are subject to the governance by the State
of New South Wales.
Obviously. They are entirely a creation of a State government act.
For example the amalgamation of councils, placing certain councils into
governance by an unelected official all done by the State Government.
So what? The local government authority still exists even if the
council is being run by an administrator. Admin_level 6 means that
there is a local government authority in place, not that it is
democratically elected.
These 'unincorporated areas' have some part of the gobermint
administering them ... as such the have an entity preforming at least
some of the actions of a 'local council' (building approvals for
example).
The most logical place to have that data in under the 'local government'
section.
We're not mapping with the administrative boundary the areas where
there are garbage services, building approvals are required, or the
streets have kerbs and gutters.
What are the characteristics of a 'local council'? (don't answer, read on)
We're mapping where there is a local government authority in place,
and, as it says on the box 'unincorporated area', there is no local
government authority in these areas.
There is an authority that performs the role of a 'local council' in
these areas ... I don't care what it is called.
There is in effect a 'local council' there, it is not 'no mans' land',
the 'wild west' etc.
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
