Martin
Thanks for this explanation. I was not at Leicester, however, I am most
interested to know this.
Two questions occur me:
1. I would maintain that in the case of clear cut statutory information,
such as SAM boundaries (as opposed to Listed Building boundaries, where
there is the question of curtilages, and non-statutory information on
monument boundaries, where there are even more difficulties) the boundaries
should be drawn electronically by those would define them and distributed to
those would might need them (i.e. LAs). So what plans are there to
disseminate the polygons once they are drawn?
2. You mention validating the polygons against 1:10000 OS map bases. I have
to ask if this is an appropriate scale when we are talking of monuments as
small as a churchyard cross?
Chris
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Newman, Martin [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 30 October 2001 11:18
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: SMR User Group follow up
>
> I think all who made it to Leicester on Friday will agree it was a very
> good
> day. A lot of useful discussion came out of the morning section and Stuart
> Bryant has agreed to write this up for the next SMR News.
> Several people asked me if Alphena's Statement on SM boundaries could be
> posted to the forum so here it is:
>
> "The situation with the SM boundaries are as follows:
> 1. The data created on the computer mapping system (CMS) now resides on
> HSIS. However, the CMS scheduled monument boundaries are a series of lines
> and not closed polygons. The exercise to move the SM boundary data from
> the
> CMS could not distinguish between the boundary and the labels used to
> identify the SM. The SM data in it's current format is not useable within
> HSIS.
>
> 2. We are working with MAGIC (six month pilot) to look at how to recreate
> the SM polygons so that they are useable within a GIS environment. Each
> polygon will need to be looked at and re-labelled and attributed according
> to the requirements of HSIS.
>
> 3. Once the CMS SM data is recreated as a polygon, the polygons will need
> to be validated against the latest Ordnance Survey 1:10k map base.
>
> 4. SM created on HSIS will also need to be validated against the latest OS
> 1:10k map base.
>
> That is generally what is happening, there's no mystery!
>
> Hope this is of some help, if you need any more information or clarity of
> any of the points above, please let me know."
>
>
> The presentation on FISH by Edmund Lee has now been posted on the SMR
> Forum
> Archive at JISC Mail.
>
> If anyone has a suitable venue for the next meeting and are willing to
> host
> the Group can they please let me know.
>
> The Issue of the name of the Group has also been raised again as it is
> mainly SMR staff who attend rather than users, what do list members think?
>
> Someone left a small black notebook on one of the chairs, I have this if
> the
> person wants to contact me (off list please) I'll post it to them.
>
> It only remains for me to thank all those who attended, Jason for chairing
> in Emma's absence and those who presented and led discussion groups.
>
> Best Wishes
>
> Martin
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> Martin Newman
> Heritage Information Partnerships Supervisor
> National Monuments Record
> English Heritage
>
> Phone - 01793 414718
> Email - [log in to unmask]
|