Changeset: 41371134
Walking the Bounds, Broxtowe, Notts, UK (bring CPs into good order) (nottm, city of nottingham (dupe city wrongly set admin=6 deleted), nottinghamshire, sandiacre + stapleford)
Closed by alexkemp
Tags
created_by | JOSM/1.5 (10526 en_GB) |
---|---|
source | OS_BoundaryLines; OS OpenData StreetView; Bing |
Discussion
-
Comment from will_p
Here you have deleted the Nottingham administrative boundary relation, which has existed in OSM since 2009. I see you have recently created another relation for the city with admin_level=8. This is wrong because Nottingham is a unitary authority and therefore admin_level=6. It is the relation you created that should be deleted because there is no admin_level=8 boundary.
I also don't understand the purpose of the admin_level=10 boundary you have created covering the whole of the City of Nottingham area. It seems very misleading because this area isn't a civil parish and doesn't contain any civil parishes.
-
Comment from alexkemp
Hello Will. Nottingham is unique (as best I can tell) in that the identical area BoundaryLine actually contains 3 admin_levels (see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/alexkemp/diary/39062):
1) level=6 Nottinghamshire; County (Nottm is the hole in the county)
2) level=8 "City of Nottingham"; Unitary Authority == District == Borough
3) level=10 "Nottingham (Unparished)"; Civic Parish (even though it is unparished).
Thus the sticking point between us is (2); I was certain at first that you had got it wrong, then thought that I was wrong, and now am not certain.
Pro your view:
See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative#10_admin_level_values_for_specific_countries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_authorities_of_England
The Wiki says UK UAs are level=6. Wikipedia says “District gained county functions 1998”. That is all compelling!
Pro my view:
See http://csmale.dev.openstreetmap.org/os_boundaryline/district_borough_unitary_region.html for the list of OS level=8 .shapes.
Ordnance Survey group Districts, Boroughs & UAs together. Thus, all .shape files are together (and thus .gpx are together) on the same page. In addition, all CPs (Civic Parish) are together on a different page, and that actually *includes* the unparished areas (which simply are unnamed).It may seem perverse, but my insistence for providing a BoundaryLine for the unparished areas is that all of the search & location functions rely on the CPs at base. Thus, wise to include them, even as “Unparished”.
Reverse the deletion if you see it to be wise to do so. You will naturally need to reset the relations that are currently in place. I spent ages & ages researching it all to try to make sure that I got it right, but it looks like I may not have done so (I'm still not certain). Bugger & oops. You will need to change the name of your old relation to “City of Nottingham”. I also think that the ‘unparished’ needs to stay for the sake of search & location.
Ah well. -
Comment from will_p
Firstly, I do recognise you have spent a lot of time tidying the geometry of boundary relations. That is definitely worthwhile and I've got absolutely no intention of doing anything that will negatively affect that. In this case, there's no reason why changes to the tagging and structure of the relations themselves should affect the underlying ways. I believe the deleted City of Nottingham relation could be undeleted without affecting anything else.
The tagging of administrative boundaries is confusing. My understanding is that the City of Nottingham (unitary authority) relation could be tagged as admin_level=6;8;10 because it covers all those levels, however, the general rule is to only tag the lowest level. I don't think Nottingham is any different from the City of Derby, which is also a unitary authority without any civil parishes.
I've got no plan to remove your admin_level=10 (civil parish) relation covering the whole of Nottingham, but I would support anyone else who chose to do so. More generally I would be interested to know the views of other contributors on this. To me it just seems problematic, because it makes it hard to find real civil parishes, because the only indication it isn't a real civil parish is a descriptive name.
-
Comment from alexkemp
You say: “City of Nottingham (unitary authority) relation could be tagged as admin_level=6;8;10”. That is genius! Leave all other BoundaryLine ‘admin_level’ as single-values, but make UAs triple values. In that case, after undelete on old relation, both new 'City of Nottingham' (level8) plus 'Nottingham (unparished)' (level10) could both be deleted. Sheer genius!
You say: “I do recognise you have spent a lot of time tidying the geometry of boundary relations”. Truly, you have no idea. It is very much more than that. I'm trying to do a complete job & make full provision with each one. Each *addition* (many are missing) takes at least a morning/afternoon. Some have taken 2 days. Please, please, please do NOT merge BoundaryLines with other features (roads, rivers, whatever). Maintenance is utter hell if that is so.
PS
Is it possible just to undelete a single relation-set, or do you have to unpick the entire changeset? I do not want to lose Oscar, nor the other changes. -
Comment from alexkemp
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Csmale/ukboundaries (csmale is the user that has also made all OS .shape files available as .gpx downloads). Looking inside those downloads, the designation for unparished parishes is “designation=non-civil_parish”.
-
Comment from SK53
Can I add again, the standards for admin_level assignment are clear (they were not in 2009 when this was added). You certainly should not have removed the existing relation.
The rule is tags on relation, lowest admin_level. In fact for Nottingham the highest level is 6 as it is a unitary authority without any districts (8) or parishes (10). The fact that boundary line data comes with unparished areas is more an artefact of the underlying GIS model.
-
Comment from Colin Smale
I fully concur with SK53. The fact that the UA and the city boundaries are coterminal does not make them the same object.
I am not convinced that the unparished areas should be in OSM at all, as the individual areas are all purely historical, unmaintained (though liable to change) and of no current value. It is possible that the polygons may be useful as the bases for a "place=*" object, but the common perception of the (sometimes rather woolly) boundaries of a named settlement often conflict with the legally defined administrative boundaries, so care is required here.
The OS data and the OSM "boundary=administrative" objects represent administrative entities, not places! Either there is a "City of Nottingham CP" or there isn't - it is not a matter of judgement, it is a matter of fact. If Nominatim gets confused by the rather complex system in the UK then it is Nominatim that needs fixing. You could always petition Parliament to sort it out, but when they come back from recess they "may" have more pressing matters to attend to first...
-
Comment from will_p
I have now undeleted the City of Nottingham admin_level=6 relation and deleted the admin_level=8 one. I checked the relation members and tags matched up between the two (where correct).
-
Comment from Colin Smale
Alex, please note that there is no such thing as an "unparished parish". A location in England is either within a Civil Parish, or it is within an unparished area.
-
Comment from alexkemp
This is an automated response: sorry, but I'm too busy mapping too be able to spare the time to respond to you. Thank you for your interest in my mapping. -Alex Kemp
Relations (6)
- Nottingham (Unparished) (6448042), v3
- Sandiacre CP (544637), v6
- Stapleford CP (544638), v7
- Nottinghamshire (181040), v180
- City of Nottingham (6448292), v2
123292, v66
Nodes (2)
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |