For Notts and Leicestershire this is not the case. Nottingham acquires parts of Rushcliffe (roughly W of the Fosse), Gedling and nearly all of Broxtowe (not Eastwood). Leicester gets parts of Blaby and, IIRC, Charnwood. Similarly Lincoln gets parts of the surrounding districts.
Amber Valley is partioned between the new North & South Derbyshires. Apparently Devon has a large rural rump left as a unitary authority with no centre and a massive network of rural roads to maintain. It may be that more detailed maps are available in the original proposals from the current authorities. I believe the selected LGRs are based on these. Jerry On Thu, 16 Jul 2026, 18:19 Edward Bainton, <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks. I’ve been only dimly aware of the process. I agree that mapping > the provisional new ones is a good idea. > > As far as I’ve been able to work out, in Cambridgeshire all consulted-upon > new unitaries have boundaries where an existing jurisdiction already has > its boundaries. > > Could that be the case elsewhere, too, so that the crudeness can be > resolved? > > > Sent from my mobile device with apologies for brevity. > > On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 at 19:13, SK53 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> I'm not aware of any detailed discussion about local government >> reorganisation. >> >> Today the preferred new unitary authorities have been announced for all >> but two areas of England (Cambridgeshire and West Sussex). >> >> I've looked at the available maps for Notts, Lincs, Derbyshire, >> Leicestershire and Rutland. They look quite crude. The LGR site allegedly >> has a postcode checker to find one's new unitary authority, but it doesn't >> work for me. This does suggest that someone has compiled a postcode, or >> even uprn, lookups for the new authorities. >> >> In the absence of detailed maps, it seems to me it may be worth adding >> these provisional boundaries to OpenStreetMap. In particular, elections for >> the new local authorities are scheduled for May 2027. Modelling of possible >> voting outcomes in those elections is likely to be of immediate interest. >> >> These are notionally proposed boundaries, although given the timetable >> they are firmer than that, but may be subject to minor tweaks. I think >> using whatever is current practice for proposed boundaries is still >> appropriate. Although I have no idea if this is something like >> type=boundary + boundary=proposed + proposed=administrative or >> type=proposed:boundary etc. >> >> Jerry >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
