Thank you for the feedback about this issue. I understand that Andrew would prefer non-council LGAs be negatively mapped (i.e they constitute areas within a state that are not mapped as council LGAs) but I didn't perceive that to be the view of other respondents. It would also mean that the names of these areas would not appear on the map, defeating one of the purposes of a map. I suggest a simple one-word change in the wiki so that Level 6 administrative boundaries in Australia would read "Local Government Area Border (e.g Shire/Council)" replacing "Local Government Authority Border (e.g Shire/Council)" clarifying that we map the area rather than the form of administration in the area. I looked at the possibility of separating the areas into LGAs administered by councils, LGAs administered by other bodies, and LGAs without a single administering authority and mapping them with different admin_levels but it seems a very clumsy solution. I also looked again at the model for States and Territories. In that category we have three different categories (1) States administered by governments with powers independent of the Commonwealth, Territories with governments with limited powers and ultimately subject to Commonwealth control, and the Jervis Bay Territory which has no single administering authority. All are mapped as admin_level=4 which I think is appropriate. If we think an LGA should not be mapped because it does not have an administering authority, would we also delete the Jervis Bay Territory for the same reason? I would hope not. Which brings me back to the simplest solution, changing the term "Local Government Authority" to "Local Government Area" in the wiki. Is this suggestion generally acceptable or could someone else suggest a more acceptable solution to the question? On Thu, Dec 22, 2016, at 08:48 AM, Warin wrote: > On 21-Dec-16 05:10 PM, Warin wrote: >> Hummm >> How about looking at it from a data consumers view point? >> Who would use boundary level 6 and what for? >> >> A resident/occupier/potential purchaser/developer may want to know >> who is the relevant authority for a particular property ... >> A new employee many want confirmation of the boundaries of the >> authority they are working for. >> I suppose you could ask a real estate agent (joke) or look in >> OSM ... >> If you are in one of these 'unincorporated areas' then with >> Andrew's' 'rule' you won't get an answer.. not much help. >> >> I would think that the 'rule' is easily expanded to include >> unincorporated areas. >> What is/are the objection/s to this expansion? Other than 'it is >> not in the wiki'. >> >> On 21-Dec-16 11:35 AM, Andrew Davidson wrote: >> >>> It's pretty simple: >>> >>> 1. Admin level 6 boundaries are supposed to enclose a "Local >>> Government Authority". >>> >>> 2. In NSW the only form of "Local Government Authority" are >>> councils incorporated under the Local Government Act. >>> >>> 3. The areas covered by these councils are "incorporated areas". >>> >>> 4. The three polygons in the LPI dataset labelled "UNINCORPORATED" >>> represent areas that are not in the "incorporated areas" and >>> therefore have no "Local Government Authority". >>> >>> 5. You don't put boundaries around things that don't exist. >> >> Unincorporated areas exit. >> They form a similar role to 'Local Councils'. >> The areas do not overlap, in fact sharing the same ways/part >> boundaries. >> There would be no data conflict in adding these to boundary level 6. >> > > Looking at > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative#10_admin_level_values_for_specific_countries > the United kingdom for level 6 boundary has "administrative counties > / Unitary authorities[1], City of London" > > And the wiki on Unitary authorities[2] says in part "type of local > authority that has a single tier and is responsible for all local > government[3] functions within its area" > > > > >> >>> >>> QED. >>> >>> The SA case is complicated by the existence of the Outback >>> Communities Authority. According to the Office of Local Government >>> it's not included: >>> >>> http://www.dpti.sa.gov.au/local_govt. >>> >>> Which is supported by the fact that the name includes the phrase >>> "unincorporated area". >>> >>> On 2016-12-21 09:15, cleary wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I have been adding administrative boundaries in NSW and SA >>>> using the >>>> Government data for which OSM has been given explicit permission. >>>> I am >>>> currently working on the "Pastoral Unincorporated Area" in SA and >>>> another mapper commented that it was inappropriate. I responded >>>> but my >>>> response appears not to have satisfied the other mapper. I then >>>> found >>>> that the same mapper had deleted the "Unincorporated Area of New >>>> South >>>> Wales" because it was not administered by a council. >>>> >>>> Both of these "unincorporated" areas are defined and designated >>>> in the >>>> respective government datasets, that is (1) South Australian >>>> Government >>>> Data - Local Government Areas and (2) LPI NSW Administrative >>>> Boundaries >>>> - Local Government. >>>> >>>> The issue for the other mapper appears to be the acceptability >>>> of the >>>> form of governance of these areas. While the majority of local >>>> government areas are administered by councils, this model works >>>> less >>>> well in areas which are sparsely populated. The Pastoral >>>> Unincorporated >>>> Area in South Australia is administered by a designated >>>> authority, the >>>> Outback Communities Authority, which is not a council either in >>>> name or >>>> in the usual sense. I am aware of three other designated local >>>> government areas in South Australia that do not have councils - >>>> two are >>>> administered by the indigenous residents although they appear to >>>> have >>>> some form of executive committee to make routine decisions. One >>>> designated local government area does not appear to have a council >>>> and I >>>> have not ascertained the form of governance. In the >>>> Unincorporated Area >>>> of New South Wales, responsibilities are dispersed and do not rest >>>> with >>>> any one body, for example roads are managed by the Roads and >>>> Maritime >>>> Services (state authority) and there are local advisory >>>> committees in >>>> some isolated communities. >>>> >>>> The key issue is whether the form of governance in an area should >>>> determine whether or not areas should be mapped in OSM. It seems >>>> to me >>>> to be akin to removing Northern Territory and ACT on the basis >>>> that they >>>> have different forms of governance and are not proper states! >>>> >>>> The comments on the Pastoral Unincorporated Area can be viewed at >>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/44528330#map=12/-34.3720/140.4687 >>>> The relation for the Pastoral Unincorporated Area is at >>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6804541 >>>> The deleted relation for Unincorporated Area of New South Wales >>>> is at >>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5892272 and refers to >>>> Changeset >>>> #44531564 >>>> >>>> Do other members of the OSM community have a view on whether the >>>> form of >>>> governance should determine what areas are shown on the map and >>>> particularly whether local government areas should be included if >>>> they >>>> are not administered by councils. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 Links: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_authority 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_authority 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_government
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
