Re: [talk-au] Why set coast line to nation park or administrative boundaries?
Apologies for a couple of errors in my previous posts:
1. DCS is acronym for Department of Customer Services (not Community Services)
2. reference to national park boundary was for Wadbilliga National Park (not
Wadbilla)
On Fri, 31 Mar 2023, at 12:14 PM, cleary wrote:
>> I'm not necessarily disputing this, but there are so many anecdotes and
>> opinions being expressed on this topic. Could I ask if we have any
>> source or citation for this? I mean the Department of Community
>> Services doesn't even exist any longer, and doesn't sound like it
>> should have been producing authoritative maps even when it did? I
>> don't even know what "as authoritative as can be obtained", even means.
>> Is there legislation, regulation, gazette?
>
> See https://six.nsw.gov.au/content/about which states:
>
> Spatial Services, on behalf of the Surveyor General, creates and
> maintains a spatial representation of the State and acts as a 'single
> source of truth' for foundation spatial information and survey
> infrastructure and services in NSW. It supports the legislative and
> statutory requirements for the NSW Surveying and Spatial Information
> Act 2002.
>
> Spatial Services provide leadership to NSW in the production and
> maintenance of foundation spatial datasets and services by capturing,
> sourcing, aggregating and quality-assuring information so that
> government, industry and the community can make informed decisions and
> create social and economic value.
>
> It also digitises and preserves NSW state records including historic
> aerial imagery, land titles, plans and state survey records.
>
> Spatial Services will be part of Government and Corporate Services within DCS.
>
>
>>And the government paying
>> a royalty to "surveyors", just sounds odd. Wouldn't a government
>> normally engage surveyors in the normal way, rather than paying
>> royalties?
>
> Some Government authorities do have their own surveying staff (but even
> Government projects such as roads and railways etc may be outsourced).
> A lot of Government data is taken from the work of private surveyors.
>
> see
> https://www.copyright.com.au/2019/07/surveyors-in-the-west-receive-first-payment-in-august/
>
> I understand that these plans are the source of data that are used to
> show lots etc. on government maps. Suburb, LGA and national park
> boundaries are then derived from this information.
>
> I found a some examples of statutes referring to national park boundaries :
>
> One example referred to expansion of Wadbilla National Park with the
> added area described as "An area of about 6 735 hectares, being the
> balance of Murrabrine State Forest No 947, dedicated 4 November 1955,
> and the balance of No 1 Extension thereto, dedicated 14 September 1979,
> and being the land shown by diagonal hatching on diagram catalogued
> Misc F 1289 in the Forestry Commission of New South Wales. Subject to
> any variations or exceptions noted on that diagram" (from Schedule 1 of
> National Park Estate (Land Transfers) Act 1998)
>
> One is ultimately referred to a diagram and to any variations or
> exceptions noted on the diagram.
>
> Another example referred to revocation of part of Kosciuszko National
> Park {Clause 27, Schedule 2 to the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974
> No 80) which described the affected parts of the national park by lot
> numbers : (a) Lots 12–22, DP 1171834, (b) Lots 21–22, DP 1171835,
> (c) Lots 30–48, DP 1171836, (d) Lots 40–45, DP 1171838, (e) Lots
> 50–53, DP 1171839, (f) Lots 60–73, DP 1171841, (g) Lots
> 7–15, DP 1171844, (h) Lots 27–50, DP 1171846. Again one has to go to
> the government sources of this data to work out the boundary lines.
>
>
>> Clearly, if you change the location, you should update the source.
>> It's an issue, but OSM does track that changes have been made and by
>> who and why. Our licence allows us to do this - and I'd argue it's the
>> specific purpose for the existence of OSM - that is you can change the
>> data. Nothing is immutable. All you need is a source, or ground-truth.
>
> I agree. The problem is that there does not appear to be any other
> source for administrative boundaries - they are government data. If we
> had another source, then we could choose to use that other source.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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
Re: [talk-au] Why set coast line to nation park or administrative boundaries?
Hi all, this thread has deviated lots from the initial question about high water marks but on a broader level, it’s important to note that statewide maps like the NSW Base Map are not the basis for legal questions. Individual property title plans are. The statewide maps just give a good (sometimes excellent) representation of relative patterns across broad areas. To quote from the NSW Six Maps FAQ: “It is important to note that cadastral data displayed within SIX Maps has no legal status and is intended for viewing purposes only. Only the registered deposited or strata plan of survey is recognised as the legal definition of the boundaries.” The NSW Base Map we use in OSM is the same as that shown at the Six Maps website. The reliance on property titles is shown in the two examples Cleary provided which refer to lot numbers. The property plans for the individual lots provide the legal basis for the boundaries of those lots. (Some of these might refer to natural features perhaps.). The schematic maps are indicative only. The NSW Base Map is compiled from layers, each of differing precision/accuracy. Roads, POIs, houses, etc are often very accurate. Streams are extremely coarse. Property boundaries are usually accurate in towns but often very imprecise in regional areas (inc National park boundaries etc). The “shape” of each allotment is broadly accurate, but there are a lot of offsets and imprecision in where the boundary actually is. As described in the six maps FAQ page, many of these boundaries were transcribed from old, broad-scale, paper plans. The process of increasing the accuracy of the statewide datasets is on an as-needs basis. Broadly, the bulk of attention is on newly subdivided lots in towns and cities, and remote properties, inc public lands, get little attention (unless there’s some legal appeal presumably). You can easily see these inaccuracies on the nsw base map by seeing how often road alignments deviate out of the road easements. The actual roads are geospatially accurate. On imagery and on the ground, the roads lie within fenced easements. On the base map, the easements are often offset, so roads appear to go through private paddocks. For public lands, the same issue arises. The statewide maps are the best we have usually, but they’re not the legal representation of boundaries. The Base Map is a fantastic resource, but actual boundaries often need to be moved to better align with fence lines. Where the boundaries follow creeks and the like, the boundaries are probably best treated as indicative and left untouched, as there’s no verifiable way of knowing where they should lie without chasing up individual property plans. Cheers Ian ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Why set coast line to nation park or administrative boundaries?
> I'm not necessarily disputing this, but there are so many anecdotes and
> opinions being expressed on this topic. Could I ask if we have any
> source or citation for this? I mean the Department of Community
> Services doesn't even exist any longer, and doesn't sound like it
> should have been producing authoritative maps even when it did? I
> don't even know what "as authoritative as can be obtained", even means.
> Is there legislation, regulation, gazette?
See https://six.nsw.gov.au/content/about which states:
Spatial Services, on behalf of the Surveyor General, creates and maintains a
spatial representation of the State and acts as a 'single source of truth' for
foundation spatial information and survey infrastructure and services in NSW.
It supports the legislative and statutory requirements for the NSW Surveying
and Spatial Information Act 2002.
Spatial Services provide leadership to NSW in the production and maintenance of
foundation spatial datasets and services by capturing, sourcing, aggregating
and quality-assuring information so that government, industry and the community
can make informed decisions and create social and economic value.
It also digitises and preserves NSW state records including historic aerial
imagery, land titles, plans and state survey records.
Spatial Services will be part of Government and Corporate Services within DCS.
>And the government paying
> a royalty to "surveyors", just sounds odd. Wouldn't a government
> normally engage surveyors in the normal way, rather than paying
> royalties?
Some Government authorities do have their own surveying staff (but even
Government projects such as roads and railways etc may be outsourced). A lot of
Government data is taken from the work of private surveyors.
see
https://www.copyright.com.au/2019/07/surveyors-in-the-west-receive-first-payment-in-august/
I understand that these plans are the source of data that are used to show lots
etc. on government maps. Suburb, LGA and national park boundaries are then
derived from this information.
I found a some examples of statutes referring to national park boundaries :
One example referred to expansion of Wadbilla National Park with the added area
described as "An area of about 6 735 hectares, being the balance of Murrabrine
State Forest No 947, dedicated 4 November 1955, and the balance of No 1
Extension thereto, dedicated 14 September 1979, and being the land shown by
diagonal hatching on diagram catalogued Misc F 1289 in the Forestry Commission
of New South Wales. Subject to any variations or exceptions noted on that
diagram" (from Schedule 1 of National Park Estate (Land Transfers) Act 1998)
One is ultimately referred to a diagram and to any variations or exceptions
noted on the diagram.
Another example referred to revocation of part of Kosciuszko National Park
{Clause 27, Schedule 2 to the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 No 80) which
described the affected parts of the national park by lot numbers : (a) Lots
12–22, DP 1171834, (b) Lots 21–22, DP 1171835, (c) Lots 30–48, DP 1171836,
(d) Lots 40–45, DP 1171838, (e) Lots 50–53, DP 1171839, (f) Lots
60–73, DP 1171841, (g) Lots 7–15, DP 1171844, (h) Lots 27–50, DP 1171846.
Again one has to go to the government sources of this data to work out the
boundary lines.
> Clearly, if you change the location, you should update the source.
> It's an issue, but OSM does track that changes have been made and by
> who and why. Our licence allows us to do this - and I'd argue it's the
> specific purpose for the existence of OSM - that is you can change the
> data. Nothing is immutable. All you need is a source, or ground-truth.
I agree. The problem is that there does not appear to be any other source for
administrative boundaries - they are government data. If we had another source,
then we could choose to use that other source.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Why set coast line to nation park or administrative boundaries?
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 18:15, cleary wrote: > > My knowledge is limited to NSW as that is the state in which I have > previously made enquiries. Verbal descriptions of administrative boundaries > have not been used in recent years. Boundaries are now defined > geospatially, with the NSW Department of Community Services being > responsible for producing the official maps. It is my understanding that > the DCS NSW maps are as authoritative as can be obtained (except for the > surveyors' charts from which the DCS maps are derived). I think the > government pays a royalty to surveyors in order to be able to use the > surveyors' data in government maps and licence others to use these maps. > DCS NSW certainly does not snap the boundaries to nearby features. > > I'm not necessarily disputing this, but there are so many anecdotes and opinions being expressed on this topic. Could I ask if we have any source or citation for this? I mean the Department of Community Services doesn't even exist any longer, and doesn't sound like it should have been producing authoritative maps even when it did? I don't even know what "as authoritative as can be obtained", even means. Is there legislation, regulation, gazette? And the government paying a royalty to "surveyors", just sounds odd. Wouldn't a government normally engage surveyors in the normal way, rather than paying royalties? > I'm uncertain about the terms of use of the government data but, > generally, when reproducing another person or organisation's resources > (images, text etc) with permission, one is required not to distort that > resource so as to not embarrass the donor. Where a source such as the NSW > Government has given permission to use its data in OSM, I feel we have an > obligation to use it correctly. It would be wrong to show inaccurate > boundaries and attribute them to the Government source. As the person who > initiated obtaining access to the NSW data a few years ago, I feel > particularly embarrassed that we might mis-use it. > > Clearly, if you change the location, you should update the source. It's an issue, but OSM does track that changes have been made and by who and why. Our licence allows us to do this - and I'd argue it's the specific purpose for the existence of OSM - that is you can change the data. Nothing is immutable. All you need is a source, or ground-truth. The only reason I can see for snapping administrative boundaries to nearby natural features is for convenience - but I see it as convenience at the expense of accuracy. > > I don't agree. I think in many cases, for all practical purposes, the boundary is the feature. And the law has traditionally allowed for accretions and erosion. But if there is some legislative instrument that defines the boundary by a particular accurate geospatial set that we have access to, regardless of the feature, then I could be convinced to change my mind. And to my mind, if you committed an offence on national park land above the high water mark, and tried to argue you were outside the park, because of some geospatial alignment, I reckon you're cooked unless you could find a legislative instrument to support that being the hard and fast line. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Why set coast line to nation park or administrative boundaries?
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 17:15, cleary wrote: > > I'm uncertain about the terms of use of the government data but, > generally, when reproducing another person or organisation's resources > (images, text etc) with permission, one is required not to distort that > resource so as to not embarrass the donor. Where a source such as the NSW > Government has given permission to use its data in OSM, I feel we have an > obligation to use it correctly. It would be wrong to show inaccurate > boundaries and attribute them to the Government source. As the person who > initiated obtaining access to the NSW data a few years ago, I feel > particularly embarrassed that we might mis-use it. > > but I believe that if we are going to do something, we should do it > properly and, in OSM, that would mean as accurately as we can manage - > even if it is inconvenient and untidy. > I don't actually disagree with you, but being picky to the nth degree here :-), does that mean we should only map using DCS NSW Imagery, & treat the DCS Base & Topo maps as gospel? I think we're all agreed that while they're helpful, their Imagery is *wwwaaayyy* out of date, while the others should only be taken as an indication, not definitive. Thanks Graeme ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Why set coast line to nation park or administrative boundaries?
My knowledge is limited to NSW as that is the state in which I have previously made enquiries. Verbal descriptions of administrative boundaries have not been used in recent years. Boundaries are now defined geospatially, with the NSW Department of Community Services being responsible for producing the official maps. It is my understanding that the DCS NSW maps are as authoritative as can be obtained (except for the surveyors' charts from which the DCS maps are derived). I think the government pays a royalty to surveyors in order to be able to use the surveyors' data in government maps and licence others to use these maps. DCS NSW certainly does not snap the boundaries to nearby features. I'm uncertain about the terms of use of the government data but, generally, when reproducing another person or organisation's resources (images, text etc) with permission, one is required not to distort that resource so as to not embarrass the donor. Where a source such as the NSW Government has given permission to use its data in OSM, I feel we have an obligation to use it correctly. It would be wrong to show inaccurate boundaries and attribute them to the Government source. As the person who initiated obtaining access to the NSW data a few years ago, I feel particularly embarrassed that we might mis-use it. The only reason I can see for snapping administrative boundaries to nearby natural features is for convenience - but I see it as convenience at the expense of accuracy. I will abide by any collective decision of mapping colleagues but I believe that if we are going to do something, we should do it properly and, in OSM, that would mean as accurately as we can manage - even if it is inconvenient and untidy. On Tue, 28 Mar 2023, at 9:42 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote: > Personally I'd prefer to snap them, it makes it easier for us to > maintain, better for data consumers, and overall cleaner data. > > I speculate these departmental GIS teams are creating the boundaries > from their own coastline datasets anyway, so why not just have them > match OSM's coastline? > > I think it's unlikely these GIS representations are the absolute set in > stone authority, if they rebuild their GIS data with newer coastline > data their boundary geometry will change. > > I agree with Frederik here, if someone wants the boundaries exactly as > they appear in the government published dataset they should go there > and not expect OSM to be exactly the same. They shouldn't be > untouchable objects in OSM, we can hold a different representation of > the boundary to the department's GIS dataset that doesn't make OSM > wrong. > > I think you'll find exactly what Frederik says, that the moment you > step foot on the land out of the water you'll be deemed in the national > park for most purposes, except particular cases where the boundaries > does extend out in the water. > ___ > 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
