I'm really not sure that we should be trying to map these at all. If we do I think Colin's approach is best: a super-relation of other admin entities. Not easy to create in the online editors but easy enough in JOSM.
There is very little on the ground to allow verification, and I suspect many will be rather ephemeral entities. There are numerous other boundaries which might be of more interest, but still perhaps not suitable for OSM : school and GP catchment areas; police authority areas and community policing areas; NHS commissioning areas; etc, etc. As ever the question is where do we stop. I think a useful questions to ask are: "Are these boundaries principally used internally to an organisation with little or no use outside it?"; "Do the boundaries impinge on people external to the originating organisation such that reference to these boundaries is likely to be made regularly?"; "Can people tell you where roughly where these boundaries lie?. I can at a pinch tell you the catchment area of my GP surgery because they have a big map on the surgery wall, and once upon a time knowledge of NHS DHA boundaries was something I need to know professionally, but for the most part I dont know anything about the others. Jerry On 10 February 2017 at 12:01, Colin Smale <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Brian, > > On 2017-02-10 12:36, Brian Prangle wrote: > > Hmmmm - that's one way I hadn't thought of. I was thinking of just adding > a tag to each boundary relation to indicate membership status along the > lines of west_midlands_combined_authority= constituent_member or > non-constituent_member as appropriate. It should work just as well and > won't fry my brain in trying to build a relation of that complexity > > The relations shouldn't be complex, certainly not brain-fryingly so.. Also > a single relation for the WMCA would comply with the principle of "one > object in real life is one object in OSM" and give a unique starting point > for users to find the extent and the membership of the authority. Is > "non-constituent membership" limited to LA's in the vicinity of the West > Midlands? Anything to stop e.g. Cornwall Council from joining, if they so > desired? > > > > Counties might not be officially required but trying filling in an online > address form and see where it gets you if you omit county! > > Not really our problem! What county would you enter for Uxbridge? > Middlesex? Or Greater London? > > > And what admin status should we give to Local Economic Partnerships? My > inclination is not to bother mapping them as boundaries but to add tags as > above along the lines of LEP= name > > > LA's can belong to multiple LEPs so this might get messy. Again I would > apply the principle of "one object..." and create a relation for the LEP, > and make the LAs members. This allows the LEPs to overlap without any > ambiguity and "not a semicolon in sight"... > > //colin > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
