Brian, isn't the geographical jurisdiction of the WMCA just the sum of
the areas of the (non-) constituent members? How about using a relation
containing the member authorities, with different roles to indicate
constituent and non-constituent status? This model will allow for
non-consituent members to be in multiple Combined Authorities.
Counties are never required in postal addresses these days - and where
they were used, Royal Mail had its own idea of "counties"...
//colin
On 2017-02-10 10:23, Brian Prangle wrote:
> Hi everyone
>
> I've just added a relation for the boundary of the new West Midlands
> Cominbined Authority [1] (which is the same as the old ceremonial West
> Midlands County, which I've left intact as it's still used I believe where
> postal addresses still insist on a county and I can't think that the postal
> address for one minute is going to change to West Midlands Combined
> Authority). My question is how do I cope with non-constituent authorties?
> Non-constituent members can sign up to more than one combined authority and
> have less voting rights than constituent members. The non-constituent
> authorities for the West Midlands Combined Authority are:
>
> * Cannock Chase District Council [2]
> * Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council [3]
> * Redditch Borough Council [4]
> * Tamworth Borough Council [5]
> * Telford and Wrekin Council [6]
>
> Regards
>
> Brian
>
> On 10 February 2017 at 08:33, Colin Smale <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Adam,
>
> The trouble with the UK is that places don't have clear boundaries...
>
> 1) on the administrative side there are Civil Parishes, but large parts of
> the country are "unparished" and some parishes contain multiple "settlements"
>
> 2) Royal Mail have completely different ideas, which are for their own
> convenience and frequently conflict with the admin boundaries
>
> 3) (my suspicion) people identify with their location using other criteria -
> spontaneous answers to "what place do you live in" will show a great
> variation "around the edges" of a place
>
> Not sure if the National Gazetteer (which focuses on addresses) tries to
> define boundaries to named places...
>
> All in all, if we have boundaries for places, they are going to have to allow
> for fuzzy edges and overlaps.
>
> I suppose it all starts with "what do you mean by place"?
>
> //colin
>
> On 2017-02-10 00:48, Adam Snape wrote:
>
> Thanks Phil,
>
> Our local place mapping must be quite primitive, because few place boundaries
> are mapped. Do you mean that both the boundary and node should carry the
> place=tag? Where there isn't a clear boundary to the place, should the mapper
> estimate it? Glad to hear I've been putting the nodes in the right place
> anyway :)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
> --------------------
>
> Normally places are mapped with both a boundary and node.
>
> A node is certainly needed for navigation and should be somewhere sensible,
> normally the centre is where someone who puts the placename into a satnav
> would expect to end up, rather than a housing estate in the geographical
> centre.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb [7]
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb [7]
Links:
------
[1] https://westmidlandscombinedauthority.org.uk/
[2] https://www.cannockchasedc.gov.uk/
[3] https://www.nuneatonandbedworth.gov.uk/
[4] http://www.redditchbc.gov.uk/
[5]
http://www.tamworth.gov.uk/tamworth-join-planned-west-midlands-combined-authority
[6]
http://www.telford.gov.uk/news/article/3085/councils_decision_on_west_midlands_combined_authority
[7] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
