Well I'm pleased that they
agree with me, but I'm not the oracle! This is another source quoting
the same general information. Do the Scottish and Northern
Irish counties generally extend to the low water mark too? Drawing from
the NPE maps seems to be our only reasonable source for the low water
mark.
Bogus Zaba wrote:
I
have had confirmation from the Local Government Boundary Commission for
Wales who agree with the view below from Chris Hill. They say :
"...in general the seaward extent of a local authority is the low water
mark as defined by Ordnance Survey. The exception to this are certain
islands such as Flat Holm (which comes under Cardiff), where the courts
have made specific decisions, such as Milford Haven, and where the
Secretary of State has made an Order extending the local authority
boundary to include an area of the sea (under Section 71 of the 1972
Act). As far as I am aware no such orders have been made in respect of
Welsh local authorities."
That's good enough for me. I will define the low water mark from NPE
and use that in the Flinthsire and Denbighshire boundaries.
Bogus Zaba
Chris Hill wrote:
I have researched boundaries of the English
counties and unitary authorities. it seems that generally they follow
the mean low water mark. Some of the land is owned by the council,
some by private owners but often by the Crown Estates and leased to the
council. By using the low water mark the council administers the beach
or foreshore and the Crown Estates administer the seabed beyond.
Cheers, Chris
Bogus Zaba wrote:
I have completed the following relations
for Unitary Authority Boundaries and put them in the Wales Wiki :
Wrexham (137981), Flintshire (198566) and Denbighshire (192442). Now
some inevitable questions:
1. How should Flintshire and Denbighshire be completed out at sea? On
the Wales Wiki it says "The current Wales Boundary (08 July 2009) is
both wrong and unhelpful." So I guess I should not be using that.
Currently Unitary Authority boundary lines go out to sea traced from
the NPE, but they do not join up with any coastal boundary. As it
happens in this part of NE Wales, nobody seems to have made the
coastline (high water mark?) ways to be members of the national
boundary relation, although that has been done for about 70% of the
welsh coastline.
2. In putting together the relations for these boundaries I found
myself splitting a lot of roads and streams into relatively short
sections so that I could then make these sections members of the
boundary relation. Is this recognised good practice, or is it better to
make a separate boundary way which simple shares nodes with the
relevant stream or road etc ?
3. In doing all this I have used the NPE layer which can be used as a
backdrop in josm and potlatch. I have realised that this NPE is not the
same NPE as can be found in other places (eg the postcode collection
application at http://www.npemap.org.uk/). The latter is clearer than
the tiles in josm and potlatch especially regarding parish boundaries
(which you find yourself tracing) which are nice dotted lines in the
postcode application and faded grey lines in the josm/patlatch layers.
Can the clearer (newer?) tiles be made available in the osm editing
environments ?
Thanks
Bogus Zaba
_______________________________________________
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
