Lets have a while to think about it... no hurry?
My initial though is that it should be a broader description ..
"Border of a local government
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_government> or an authority
performing the functions of a local government
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_government> (e.g. Cobar Shire
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobar_Shire>, Municipality of
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipality_of_Strathfield>Strathfield
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipality_of_Strathfield> , North
Sydney Council <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sydney_Council>,
Unincorporated Far West
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unincorporated_Far_West> , ) "???
The examples are NSW only ... and should be expanded to other parts. But
is does include Shire, Municipality and Council examples.
It is a bit verbose.
On 23-Dec-16 09:50 AM, cleary wrote:
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
athttp://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
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_authority>, City of London"
And the wiki on Unitary authorities
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_authority> says in part "type
of local authority that has a single tier and is responsible for all
local government <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_government>
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 <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
_________________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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
