Re: [talk-au] Local Government Areas without Councils

[Warin]

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 
  or an authority 
performing the functions of a local government 
 (e.g. Cobar Shire 
, Municipality of 
Strathfield 
 , North 
Sydney Council , 
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 
, City of London"


And the wiki on Unitary authorities 
 says in part "type 
of local authority that has a single tier and is responsible for all 
local government  
functions within its area"









QED.

The SA case is complicated by the existence of the Outback 
Communities Authority. According to the 

Re: [talk-au] Local Government Areas without Councils

[nwastra]

Your suggestion of …
'the simplest solution, changing the term "Local Government Authority" to 
"Local Government Area" in the wiki. is acceptable’ 
is a good solution for me as all these areas need to appear on the map.
nevw 

> On 23 Dec 2016, at 8:50 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 , City 
>> of London" 
>> 
>> And the wiki on Unitary authorities 
>>  says in part "type of local 
>> authority that has a single tier and is responsible for all 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 
 . 
 

Re: [talk-au] Local Government Areas without Councils

[cleary]

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 

Re: [talk-au] When is a road, not a road?

[Warin]

On 22-Dec-16 05:19 PM, Sam Wilson wrote:

I've found that there are quite a few MRWA road centre-lines that bear
no relation to where the actual road is. Usually because there are big
lumps of granite in the way, or quarries, or other physical reasons to
re-route the road. (I guess the road-builders don't tell MRWA that they
changed things?)


Humm these might be 'private' roads - e.g. constructed by a mining company for 
their use.
So they might be highway=unclassified etc but access=private.




But yeah, I'm taking MRWA's geometries as a guide only, and certainly
not assuming their data is 100% complete. :-) So, I'd assume that any
non-track highway that is in OSM but not in MRWA is as-currently-mapped,
and leave it be.

Also, around towns there are often MRWA residential roads with names and
classifications etc. but which haven't actually (yet) been built. These
are sometimes currently firebreaks, but sometimes just scrub.


Similar problems occurs with the LPI base map ...
though sometimes I think that the LPI base map might be more up to date than 
the satellite imagery:-\
Generally I leave these out as they may not exist yet. If you can see them as 
firebreaks then you could enter them as tracks.



:-)

Of course, really what we should do it get out there for some
ground-truthing to solve these questions! :-)


Yes. Thought there is rather a lot of ground to cover8-)



—Sam

On Thu, 22 Dec 2016, at 01:11 PM, Andrew Davidson wrote:

The metadata says that it includes roads maintained by Main Roads and
"all roads controlled by Local Government (Local Roads) that are
assigned road numbers", which is great. It also has "other centreline is
also included for paths and unknown roads" which is a bit vague as to
how complete the data set is. What do the missing roads look like on
aerial imagery?

On 22/12/16 16:06, Warin wrote:

On 22-Dec-16 03:59 PM, Warren wrote:

I suspect the answer to this question  is simple.

Following Sam Wilson's post about the data sources available for
Western Australian Roads, and using Sam's approach I have begun adding
and checking road names in WA.  In  the area that I am currently
working there are a number of named "roads" on  OSM (usually Highway:
unclassified), that do not appear on the Main roads data.

If a road is not on the Main roads database does it automatically
become a named track (Highway: Track)?

I'd leave it alone... someone thinks otherwise ... contact them for
their view.

The 'Main roads database' may not include roads maintained by local
councils ... that does not make them OSM 'highway=track'.

___
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




___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au