 |
 |
Chris Wardle wrote: > So one of the aspects that I think should be looked at (though to some > extent we may already be too late) is that that there needs to be some > consideration of who it is that is to draw the difinative boundary on the > GIS and then makes it available to the other who might need it on a regular > basis. This brings up the subject of precisely *which* metadata will be needed for an adequate quality control of such digital map layers. Besides the metadata about locational precision and accuracy, there must be metadata about the formal status of the map layer (if it has any). Map layers representing information with any kind of legal status should have metadata about: - precise nature of that legal status - organisation (and, where appropriate, office) responsible for providing the digital map data - dates on which and method by which the map layer was digitised - a reference to the most up-to-date available source of information regarding the map layer Such metadata would at least inform the user about the problems listed by Chris: > To look at Jason's list the responsibility for providing the definative GIS > shape should be: > SSSIs -already defined be English Nature and they have had a consultant plot > these on GIS. > SAMs -up to English Heritage to define these on the GIS. (In the absence of > anything from EH we have defined these on our GIS using the often inadequate > paper maps supplied by EH.) > AONB -up to DETR (or whatever they are called now). > Conservation Areas -up to whichever Local Authority body designated them. > Land boundaries -presumably he means land ownership and the people most > likely to be able to supply this are land charges sections of Local > Authorities. But it would be very difficult to keep this current. Martijn van Leusen Groningen Institute of Archaeology PS. What's a curtilage?