I've already raised concerns I have in a changeset comment about these
edits adding admin_level=10 administrative boundary relations for voids
between civil parishes. They are tagged with
designation=non-civil_parish. This has been discussed on this list
previously. My main objection is that these areas aren't really
administrative entities at all. Gregory correctly points out they are
sometimes used for statistical purposes, but I don't think that
justifies tagging them as administrative.
Another concern is that these admin_level=10 voids often include several
former civil parishes, so they cover a wider area than the name given to
them suggests. An example is Beeston:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9246079
This new relation covers five former civil parishes (Attenborough,
Beeston, Bramcote, Chilwell and Toton) and so includes a wider area than
what is usually considered to be Beeston. If Beeston is mapped as an
area I think it would be better to use something closer to the area of
the former civil parish.
Gregory has already agreed to think about alternative tagging for this,
but I thought it was worth raising here, in case other people have any
thoughts.
Cheers,
Will
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
