Ed I think that each is an E27 Site with a P53 link to E53 Place. Best Rgds SdS
Stephen Stead Tel +44 20 8668 3075 Mob +44 7802 755 013 E-mail [email protected] _____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of LEE, Edmund Sent: 19 December 2006 15:40 To: [email protected] Subject: [Crm-sig] Character area concept Dear CRM SIG, I am currently managing a project to update the UK MIDAS standard - the data standard for documentation of the historic environment. I am having difficulty in describing one particular aspect that needs documentation, and wondered if CRM thinking might assist. The issue is projects that characterise (describe) the landscape. The intention is to provide researchers, planners and developers with some indication of the likely historic environment issues that need to be addressed when working in a particular area. The professionals involved contrast this work with the documentation of specific sites / archaeological monuments / historic buildings that are the focus of most historic environment documentation at present, but which leave 'gaps' in between where the historic environment advisor has no information to offer. The technique is still evolving, but generally consists of dividing the complete surface of the contemporary landscape (and sea-bed) into polygons based either on arbitrary spatial reference systems (e.g. grid lines) or a combination of natural and man-made physical and administrative boundaries. Each area is described in terms of the character of historical development or use of the area and the factors affecting this. Reviews of the technique as used at English Heritage are available at http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.1293 See the document 'Taking stock of the method'. What I am interested in is what the status of the polygons defined by characterisation technique is in CRM terms. They are not physical, like for example a building is physical, and so do not fit neatly into the 'heritage asset' theme, in which I currently have them along with 'monuments' (in which I include large scale relict landscape features such as hedgerows or abandoned field systems) and 'artefacts'. Yet they have attributes which are similar - for example they are characterised by settlement pattern, date / origin of boundaries etc. There may be some subtle conceptual modelling that I am missing. Any thoughts from the CRM would therefore be most welcome! Best wishes Edmund Lee English Heritage MIDAS project manager
