On 2018-03-10 17:41, André Pirard wrote:
> * "ceremonial" Berkshire [1] that is not administrative, has no level and yet
> contains administrative "councils"
> Berkshire itself, however, is not a subarea of a higher level but it could
>
> * Relation Bracknell Forest (113682) [2] as subarea
> * Relation Reading (115074) [3] as subarea
> * Relation Slough (117097) [4] as subarea
> * Relation West Berkshire (116938) [5] as subarea
> * Relation Windsor and Maidenhead (111014) [6] as subarea
> * Relation Wokingham (114311) [7] as subarea
In an administrative sense his is a logical error. The UAs should not be
a subarea of the ceremonial county. However in a geometrical sense it is
not wrong of course, although you could consider it redundant.
A ceremonial county boundary is defined using a different process to
administrative counties, and in theory there can be temporary divergence
(if the admin boundary is changed by law and it takes a while for the
ceremonial county to catch up) or, indeed, permanent divergence (such as
County Durham which is split between two admin counties).
I would be in favour of removing the subarea links in the case of the
Berkshire UAs.
A ceremonial county has no level because it doesn't need one - there are
no ceremonial entities at a higher or lower level.
Colin
Links:
------
[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/52411
[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/113682
[3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/115074
[4] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/117097
[5] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/116938
[6] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/111014
[7] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/114311
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
