Just wanted to give everyone a heads-up...
User SemanticTourist has been very busy recently with Neighbourhood Plan
areas, particularly in East/West Sussex, Kent and central England.
He has been adding them to the map in a way that IMHO is not compatible
with current practice.
Note that Neighbourhood Plan areas are often coincident with civil
parishes, as the parish council is invited to make its own NP. However
this is not always the case.
The parish can exclude parts of its area from the NP area, and can
cooperate with adjacent parishes to "trade" areas in order to make more
sense from a planning perspective.
In addition, NPs can be set up for non-parished areas by suitable bodies
as determined by the main local authority.
I make the following observations:
1) He uses a single way (with common nodes on common boundaries with
adjacent areas) for a complete boundary instead of boundary relations
and a shared way
2) Tagging the way with boundary=administrative, admin_level=10 despite
the fact that they do not represent an area of local government
3) There appears to be something not quite right with the projection of
his boundaries as they are displaced by several metres with respect to
existing boundaries
In spite of promises made in email exchanges he is continuing to work in
this way. As far as I am concerned it's fine to add NP areas to OSM, but
not as boundary=administrative with
an admin_level as this overloads the way parish/community areas are
tagged at present. We were getting closer and closer to complete
coverage of admin areas in the UK but this
is just spoiling it.
What do others think?
Colin
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
