On 2018-08-27 00:24, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On 26/08/2018 21:36, Colin Smale wrote: On 2018-08-26 21:17, David Woolley
> wrote:
>
> It looks to me as though boundaries can be defined recursively, so Hampshire,
> rather than its bounding ways, ought to to be the object referenced in the
> bigger entities. This wouldn't work in the case of civil parishes as
> components of districts and UA's though. You cannot define a district as the
> union of the parishes. There are unparished areas, detached parts and "lands
> common" which complicate the model. However I believe every point in the UK
> is within some district/UA, and every district is within a county, giving
> 100% coverage at that level.
Every point is within a district, but not every district is within a
county - unless, that is, you consider a unitary authority to be
effectively two different entities that happen to have identical
boundaries.
I think you understood what I meant. AIUI a UA is normally technically a
district. A city is an orthogonal concept- a "city council" can be a UA
(eg Nottingham), a District (eg Canterbury) or a Civil Parish (eg
Salisbury) that has been awarded that status. And not every city has its
own council of any type (eg Bath).
And of course a council is not an area, it is an administrative body.
There are admin areas defined in law that do not have a corresponding
council, eg the county of Berkshire and many Civil Parishes. Sometimes
they play games with the naming: Rutland County Council is not a county
council, because there is no extant county of Rutland. It is a
non-metropolitan district with unitary status, whose council is formally
called Rutland County Council District Council.
I stand by my comment that the "sum of parts" system could work down to
the district/UA level, and not down to the civil parish level.
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
