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 <o...@97k.com> 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 >> >> <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 <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 >>>> <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 >>>>> <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 >>>>> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6804541> >>>>> The deleted relation for Unincorporated Area of New South Wales is at >>>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5892272 >>>>> <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 >>>>> <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 >>>> <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 >> <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
