If I am repeating what others are saying it is because my e-mails are taking approx 2 hours to reach thieir targets
Here in South Gloucestershire I have mapped both our SAMs and our LBs. The LBs by approximate property (think wall gate tomb etc), curtliage is virtually impossible to do properly. Certainly in terms of the cost of resurveying each building.
I thought property boundaries were being dealt with by the NLPG?
>>> [log in to unmask] 08/10/2001 12:16:19 >>>
Hi,
Further to what Jason has said we need to be careful to avoid duplication in
as far we can. I believe there has already been a certain amount of
duplication of effort. Take listed buldings: In those parts of England where
there are two tiers of local government. Many county and districts councils
have dots on their GIS layers indicating where the listed structuress are.
We have gone as far as defining shapes for all the listed building (NB the
buildings themselves not their curtilages). It's highly likely that at least
some the districts in the county have done the same, and possibly English
Heritage have either done so too or else plan to do so. It strikes me that
there is a good deal of wasteful duplitaion of effort here. Furthermore, it
is highly likely that some of the resulting GIS data will clash. For
instance, one or more of the districts in the county might elect to draw
shapes for the curtilages rather than just the structures (It is difficult
to see how this might be arrived at. It is unlikely to be a specialist who
will draw the shapes on the GIS and how can you ask a technician to define
something as nebulous as a curtilage?) If there were ever a dispute this
might lead to dispute.
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.
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.
Chris
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Siddall, Jason [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 08 October 2001 10:36
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: SAMs on GIS
>
> hmmm
> This issue has been on my mind for some time .... I do not think that
> everyone will want all of each others map layers (when the systems we have
> will generate their own points etc). However there is a real need to
> follow
> some common standards and also to identify the key data that we all
> want..... these key sets of data (SAMS are just one) must be owned and
> generated centrally..... indeed they should only have one author and yes
> John you are right they must be readily accessible.
>
> so what are the key data sets?
> I would suggest (and this is only off the top of my head)
> SSSI (areas with attached data)
> SAM (areas with attached data i.e sam number, name would be very useful)
> AONB (areas with attached data)
> Local and national conservation and historic areas (areas with data)
> land boundaries (National Trust - sorry i don't think we have sorted that
> out yet)
>
> all of these would be great however it means we must begin to think about
> how we can swop such data and ensure that they will integrate - so
> standards
> are the real key to any integration this includes what orienation and
> projections we are using.
>
> in the end data has little value unless it is being used so such key data
> must be free and readilly accessible.
>
> Jason A. Siddall
> NTSMR Officer (being a coockoo and residing in NMR for a while)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Wood [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 10:10 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: SAMs on GIS
>
>
> Well, we had held off digitising the SAM polygons because Historic
> Scotland
> promised to do it, and I'm glad now we saved the time and expense. The HS
> ArcView shapefile is really good and very useful, and as far as I am
> concerned has now downside except that far-flung planning officers seem to
> be incapable of using it! I have therefore had to put a complete listing
> (with notes) of all our SAMs onto the Council's Intranet as a
> supplementary
> excercise.
>
> John
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> John Wood
> Senior Archaeologist
> Planning and Development Service
> The Highland Council
> Glenurquhart Road
> Inverness IV3 5NX
> Tel: 01463 702502 Fax: 01463 702298
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Web: <http://www.higharch.demon.co.uk>
>
> This Email (and any attachment) is intended for the exclusive use of the
> addressee(s) only. You should not disclose its contents to any other
> person. If you receive this message in error, please contact the sender
> and delete the message. Thank you
> Opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily represent
> those of my employer.
**********************************************************************
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it from South
Gloucestershire Council are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error
please notify the South Gloucestershire Council postmaster
at the address below.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has
been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
[log in to unmask]
**********************************************************************
|
