On 24 Feb 2010, at 01:16, Peter Reed wrote: > Steve, > > It needn't be parishes. For population data it looks as though I can > get > down to ward level with up-to-date numbers from ONS. > http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Product.asp?vlnk=13893 > > Looking at the ONS lists there are about 9,000 wards in England (and > about > 10,000 parishes). It's going to take a while to trace them all! > > More importantly it seems to me that this will only work when the > boundaries > are meaningful to the community at large. I used the term > "settlement" in > that sense, as a loose catchall for any city, town, village, or > suburb that > was meaningful. The Opencyclemap locations seem to take a similar > approach, > and seemed like a good starting point.
I get the impression that the OS BoundaryLine dataset may possibly get released under a suitable license for us prior to any upcoming general election. If so then this would be a huge boost to this work. http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/products/boundaryline/ Incidentally, the OS have already released the boundary ontology on a cc-by-nc license (which is a start but not good enough for OSM unfortunately due to the 'non-commercial' clause) http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/ontology/ So... I suggest that we leave any heroic additional boundary data collection for a month or so to see what happens. Regards, Peter > > As an example, from the ONS lists, in Medway the wards are: > > Chatham Central > Cuxton and Halling > Gillingham North > Gillingham South > Hempstead and Wigmore > Lordswood and Capstone > Luton and Wayfield > Peninsula > Princes Park > Rainham Central > Rainham North > Rainham South > River > Rochester East > Rochester South and Horsted > Rochester West > Strood North > Strood Rural > Strood South > Twydall > Walderslade > Watling > > I don't know the Medway area, so I'm not sure how these wards > translate into > "settlements" - but my guess from the names is that Gillingham, > Rainham, > Rochester and Strood are "settlements" that are subdivided into > smaller > wards. Cuxton, Halling, Lordswood and so on look like smaller > settlements > that have been combined into wards, and some of the others (Peninsula, > River) might not correspond to a settlement or suburb of a > settlement that > people would recognise. That seems to be the kind of mix we have > round here. > > > In other words, there isn't always a ward boundary that corresponds > to a > recognisable settlement, but where there is a ward (or district > council > boundary) that corresponds to a recognisable settlement I can use it > to > classify the apparent level of coverage on the map. > > I don't think we want to start inventing our own system of > boundaries, so > I'm not quite sure where that leaves us elsewhere. > > At the moment the best I can suggest is to do what makes sense > locally with > the boundaries that are available. On the next round of data > crunching I'll > do my best to make use of all the admin boundaries in the map that I > am able > to match up with population figures. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
