I had already suggested boundary=planning to SemanticTourist. Boundary=civil is rather ambiguous. In my eyes the boundary tag serves to differentiate which hierarchy the area belongs to. For example boundary=police might serve for police force jurisdictions, with different values of admin_level for force areas and districts (not sure exactly how they are organised).
NP's don't have an admin function in the sense of a separate body to administer them, they are just documents with a legal status which are owned by (and binding on) certain bodies. There might also be Traffic Plans, Landscaping Plans etc etc. According to Wikipedia: In England the local planning authorities are 32 London borough [2] councils, 36 metropolitan borough [3] councils, 201 non-metropolitan district [4] councils, 55 unitary authority [5] councils, the City of London Corporation [6] and the Council of the Isles of Scilly [7]. Neighbourhood Plans are for subareas of the LPAs. Colin On 2013-03-23 18:12, Jason Woollacott wrote: > Thinking about how to code them, maybe boundary=civil would be acceptable. > Somebody could probably form an argument for boundary=Administrative, as > they do have an admin function, but they would need to be different from > the Civil Parish. > > Jason (UniEagle) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Colin Smale > Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 2:24 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Talk-GB] Possible Boundary Vandalism Warning > > 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 [1] > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb [1] Links: ------ [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_borough [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_borough [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-metropolitan_district [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_authorities_of_England [6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Corporation [7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_the_Isles_of_Scilly
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
