Despite the transitional pain, it seems clear that the best way forward is for ALL heritage systems to use the same administrative area coding system, with this being based on the data released by OS/ONS.
Among other benefits, this will allow the Heritage Gateway to search on a national code identifier instead of a free text name, meaning that hyphenation etc will not affect the search if you happen to want to change the displayed text at either end (Gateway or HER).
However there are some transitional problems:
a) making sure everyone is using the same release of Boundaryline (currently EH systems are using an older one than we are building into HBSMR).
b) therefore working out an upgrade mechanism (along same lines as the thesaurus upgrade procedure). Non-trivial!
c) NPAs - i.e. this national standard has holes in it.
d) trading the benefits of the above against the benefits of continuing to use existing admin area reference data.
e) costs of transition.
f) bad naming in the OS/ONS data (e.g, Ingrid's examples).
On point "c" - this is fundamental, and is being addressed in a completely adhoc way at present by necessity. Can we tackle this at source? Can EH/DSU on behalf of the sector talk to OS/ONS about this, and help them fill these holes? If that is not possible, then we need a two-tier data standard, ie. BoundaryLine + a supplementary dataset curated by DSU/FISH or something. That could work, but so much better if OS/ONS would do it.
"f" should be susceptible to the same approach. I doubt these things are deliberate or well considered - probably nobody has ever thought to point out the problems.
yours
Crispin
PS as Steve has mentioned, we will help sort out the text-matching, and also help migrate your entire dataset to use the BoundaryLine admin area, if you want.
________________________________
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records on behalf of CARLISLE, Philip
Sent: Wed 20/07/2011 15:15
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Heritage Gateway (and National Heritage List) - new County/District/Parish issues
Hugh,
Oh dear. I feel I may have further muddied the muddiest of waters.
My understanding of the situation is so skewed that I no longer know what is what.
These are the facts as I see them:
1. The OS/Office of National Statistics provide the definitive list of Civil Parishes/Districts/Unitary Authorities/Metropolitan Districts/Boroughs etc..
2. The OS dataset includes 'holes' in the data which don't have labels (at the Parish level) because they are Non-Civil Parishes
3. Various datasets have used various lists of CDP information which may/may not conform to OS/ONS data
4. Some datasets disagree with the 'Official' labels for either C or D or P.
5. This wasn't an issue until the internet came along as we all knew our datasets and we all knew how to find things
6. This is now a major issue as the public have access to our data and can't find information relating to where they live across a wide range of datasets.
7. No-one has the perfect solution.
For those of you who are familiar with Larry Miller, I am Astroturf.
Phil
Phil Carlisle
Data Standards Supervisor
Data Standards Unit, Designations Department
English Heritage
The Engine House
Fire Fly Avenue
Swindon
SN2 2EH
Tel: +44 (0)1793 414824
http://thesaurus.english-heritage.org.uk/
The information contained within this e-mail is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee only. If you have received the e-mail in error, please inform the sender and delete it from your system. The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed to anyone else or copied without the sender's consent.
Any views and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of English Heritage. English Heritage will not take any responsibility for the views of the author.
P Please do not print this e-mail unless you really need to
-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Winfield, Hugh
Sent: 20 July 2011 12:28
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Heritage Gateway (and National Heritage List) - new County/District/Parish issues
Phil,
This has just confused me. I was under the impression that NCPs were simply parish areas with no parish/town council, and Un-Parished areas were things like the old Boroughs and County Boroughs that no longer have independent councils *.
So for our area a Civil Parish would be Immingham, which has a Town Council - A Non-Civil Parish would be Hawerby cum Beesby which has no council (and a population <50) - and an Un-Parished Council would be Cleethorpes which has no independent council or Mayor, but importantly used to have one.
I also use Non-Parish Area to cover our Estuarine area to enable searching of our maritime records.
have I therefore miss-understood?
Hugh
Hugh Winfield
Archaeologist and Historic Environment Record Officer Development Management Origin One, Origin Way Europarc, Grimsby North East Lincolnshire
DN37 9TZ
Tel: (01472) 32 3586 Fax: (01472) 32 4216
Balfour Beatty working in partnership with North East Lincolnshire Council
________________________________
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records on behalf of CARLISLE, Philip
Sent: Wed 20/07/2011 12:06
To: Winfield, Hugh
Subject: Re: Heritage Gateway (and National Heritage List) - new County/District/Parish issues
Hi Steve et al,
Actually the NCPs were created a long time before the digitized OS Boundary Line data. In actual fact they were an artificial construct developed by EH/RCHME based on the county maps to get around the fact that the OS didn't provide names for certain urban areas and our systems wouldn't allow the recording of a site without a parish. These were created in our systems as Non-Parish Areas and were then passed on to external systems when the EH CDP was made available.
Just as a case in point we in fact had (and indeed in AMIE still have!) WINDSOR and MAIDENHEAD (both flagged as NPAs) within the district of WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD.
The Gateway and NHLE list conforms to OS boundary line and our internal systems have been brought into line with this (including the use of hyphens and other punctuation).
The area we're still having difficulty resolving is that of the NCPs/NPAs. On the one hand they're not official but on the other hand they're exceptionally useful.
I spent the best part of 6 months getting the AMIE database to conform to the new list and I'm resigned to the new way of doing things but believe me, I appreciate the frustrations associated with this particular can of worms as much as anyone.
Anyway I just thought I'd offer my personal view on the subject.
Phil
Phil Carlisle
Data Standards Supervisor
Data Standards Unit, Designations Department
English Heritage
The Engine House
Fire Fly Avenue
Swindon
SN2 2EH
Tel: +44 (0)1793 414824
http://thesaurus.english-heritage.org.uk/
The information contained within this e-mail is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee only. If you have received the e-mail in error, please inform the sender and delete it from your system. The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed to anyone else or copied without the sender's consent.
Any views and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of English Heritage. English Heritage will not take any responsibility for the views of the author.
P Please do not print this e-mail unless you really need to
________________________________
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steve Ellwood
Sent: 20 July 2011 11:30
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Heritage Gateway (and National Heritage List) - new County/District/Parish issues
The issue with the NCP names stems from the fact that the original data used to create the CDP list, the OS Boundary Line data, didn't have any names for the NCP areas and so EH had to give them names and the only way to do this is an automated fashion was to give them a name based on the district they fall within. So, for example, in Berkshire the NCP that should be 'Windsor' fell within the 'Windsor and Maidenhead' district and was given the name 'Windsor and Maidenhead (non civil parish)'. Now this does cause some issues, especially as both 'Windsor' and 'Maidenhead' NCPs fall in same district and so were given the same name, but as I help the HER set up the matching tables to match the CDP list with their Admin Areas I am feeding the 'correct' NCP names back to EH so that they can be corrected in the future.
If you contact me directly ([log in to unmask] or 01874 713 079) we can look in to the specific issues you are having with the searching in case there is a bigger issue (though I am teaching a training course today so tomorrow would be best).
Cheers,
Steve
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Steve Ellwood
Heritage IT Consultant
exeGesIS Spatial Data Management Ltd
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
Direct Dial: 01874 713079
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Helen Wells (Archaeology)
Sent: 20 July 2011 10:46
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Heritage Gateway (and National Heritage List) - new County/District/Parish issues
Hello again,
I don't know if it's that simple, is it? It seems to complain about the fact the parish has hyphens on the Gateway, I'm not sure it's even trying to search our data. And the NCPs are wrong in the list. So no-one would know what they meant (they're nothing like the actual NCP names). Really it needs to be fixed on the Gateway, and it sounds like they are going to be fixed. I fixed all our data to use the CDP list that the Gateway is apparently using, so I don't really want to change it again..!
Helen Wells
Historic Environment Record Officer
Leicestershire County Council
http://www.leics.gov.uk/archaeology
-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steve Ellwood
Sent: 20 July 2011 10:22
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Heritage Gateway (and National Heritage List) - new County/District/Parish issues
Hi Helen,
As mentioned yesterday this is something we can fix, and will do so during your Annual Service Visit, so that when someone searches using the non-hyphonated parish on the Heritage Gateway it will return all the records from the appropriate hyphenated admin area in your system. We can also make searches for the non civil parishes retrieve data from the appropriate admin areas. During the process we will also feed information back to the Heritage Gateway team about the CDP values that need to be reviewed/changed although there isn't a formal process for this yet.
Again please contact me directly if you want to discuss this and/or if you feel this needs to be done before your ASV.
Regards,
Steve
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Steve Ellwood
Heritage IT Consultant
exeGesIS Spatial Data Management Ltd
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
Direct Dial: 01874 713079
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Helen Wells (Archaeology)
Sent: 20 July 2011 09:46
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Heritage Gateway (and National Heritage List) - new County/District/Parish issues
Hello,
I'm sure I asked about this (all our NCPs are unsearchable) and they said they were going to fix it. Also at present it also doesn't search for things with hyphens in the name (like Ashby-de-la-Zouch) or ampersands (like Bagworth & Thornton). They need to fix this at the Gateway end really, and I understood they were going to. But that was a while ago...
Helen Wells
Historic Environment Record Officer
Leicestershire County Council
http://www.leics.gov.uk/archaeology
-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nick Boldrini
Sent: 20 July 2011 09:01
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Heritage Gateway (and National Heritage List) - new County/District/Parish issues
I agree with Mike.
However, I think the issue is, is that the list is using the Authority Names/definitions rather than plain english one eg County Curham is not on the County list, but is on the list of District/Borough Unitary Authorities.
That might be ok for professionals, but its not going to be particularly helpful for MoPs
Work arounds for HBSMR are one thing, but I think the interface needs a bit of an overhaul
best wishes
Nick Boldrini
Historic Environment Record Officer
Archaeology Section
Design and Historic Environment Team
Planning Service
Regeneration and Economic Development
Durham County Council
Rivergreen Centre
Aykley Heads
Durham
DH1 5TS
Tel: 0191 3708840
Fax: 0191 3708897
[log in to unmask]
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mike Shaw
Sent: 19 July 2011 15:57
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Heritage Gateway (and National Heritage List) - new County/District/Parish issues
I would agree that it is all very well finding work arounds on an individual basis but really we need to exert pressure to get the CDP list correct. At the moment it seems to be largely ok for Metropolitan Boroughs eg for Walsall Metropolitan Borough you search under W for Walsall; its sort of OK for most of the older cities in that you search under B for Birmingham but you will find it described as Birmingham (Metropolitan Borough) which of course it aint; other cities, mainly the newer ones, are under C for City eg City of Wolverhampton, though even here to add insult to injury it had a (Metropolitan Borough) tacked on to the end suggesting that it is possible to be a City and a Metropolitan Borough at the same time!
Apologies if these issues were discussed at HBSMRUG which I didn't manage to attend but I do think that it is something we need to get right, not just for HBSMR users but for HER areas as a whole.
Mike
Mike Shaw
City Archaeologist
Wolverhampton City Council
Civic Centre
Wolverhampton
WV1 1RP
e-mail [log in to unmask]
Tel: 01902 555493
________________________________
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peckham, Ingrid
Sent: 19 July 2011 15:04
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Heritage Gateway (and National Heritage List) - new County/District/Parish issues
Does anyone know when the problems with the new County/District/Parish list on Heritage Gateway are likely to be resolved?
Currently on Heritage Gateway, Southampton HER records can't be found using "Where" searches. This is because the Southampton HER data uses "Southampton" for District/Borough/Unitary Authority and Parish, whereas the CDP list uses "City of Southampton (Unitary Authority)".
Of course, I could alter the Southampton data to match the CDP list and reload it to Heritage Gateway, but I understood a solution/work-around was to be implemented. And anyway, I think the CDP dropdown list should be changed. The list is very inconsistent; several cities that happen to be unitary authorities are listed as "City of", whereas other cities are listed by their name. I'm sure most users would look for the city name, so the dropdown list should reflect this.
Our planning department had a similar problem with the national Planning Portal a year or two ago, however they complained and "City of Southampton" was quickly changed to "Southampton City Council" (the name used on the Directgov list of local authorities).
I know there are more complex problems with other non-parish areas.
The new National Heritage List uses the same CDP list and is similarly problematic.
I've recently produced a new HER leaflet that mentions Heritage Gateway, but have delayed distributing it (including to councillors) until this problem is sorted out. My divisional manager was decidedly unimpressed by the web site last April, not being able to find the Southampton data, and he will decide next April whether to continue the funding.
Best wishes
Ingrid
Ingrid Peckham
Historic Environment Record Officer
Historic Environment Team
Planning and Sustainability Division
Southampton City Council
Tel: 023 8083 2850
This email is confidential but may have to be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. If you are not the person or organisation it was meant for, apologies, please ignore it, delete it and notify us. SCC does not make legally binding agreements or accept formal notices/proceedings by email. E-mails may be monitored.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: This email and files transmitted are
confidential and are intended solely for the use of the
intended recipient. If you are not the intended
recipient, or the person responsible for delivering it to
the intended recipient, you may not copy, disclose,
distribute or use it in any unauthorised manner. If you
have received this email in error please notify us by
email to [log in to unmask] and then delete
it and any attachments accompanying it. Please note that
Wolverhampton City Council cannot guarantee that this
message or any attachments are virus free or have not been
intercepted and amended.
Any views or opinions expressed within this email are
those of the author and may not necessarily reflect those
of Wolverhampton City Council and no contractual
arrangement is intended to arise from this communication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________
Help protect our environment by only printing this email if absolutely necessary. The information it contains and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are only intended for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may be unlawful for you to use, share or copy the information, if you are not authorised to do so. If you receive this email by mistake, please inform the person who sent it at the above address and then delete the email from your system. Durham County Council takes reasonable precautions to ensure that its emails are virus free. However, we do not accept responsibility for any losses incurred as a result of viruses we might transmit and recommend that you should use your own virus checking procedures.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Leicestershire County Council - Council of the Year 2009
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any reading, printing, storage, disclosure, copying or any other action taken in respect of this e-mail is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by using the reply function and then permanently delete what you have received.
Incoming and outgoing e-mail messages are routinely monitored for compliance with Leicestershire County Council's policy on the use of electronic communications. The contents of e-mails may have to be disclosed to a request under the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
The views expressed by the author may not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Leicestershire County Council.
Attachments to e-mail messages may contain viruses that may damage your system. Whilst Leicestershire County Council has taken every reasonable precaution to minimise this risk, we cannot accept any liability for any damage which you sustain as a result of these factors. You are advised to carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
Have you, or someone you know, been involved in a restoration project? If so, you could be eligible for a Heritage Angel Award, a new scheme backed by Andrew Lloyd Webber to celebrate the people who save our heritage.
Please visit or forward the link http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/caring/heritage-at-risk/English-Heritage-Angel-Awards/ for more information.
<html>
<p>
<p>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none'><span
style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Webdings;mso-bidi-font-family:Webdings;
color:green'>P </span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:green'>Reduce your environmental footprint, please do not print this email unless you really need to. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none'><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>This
electronic message contains information from North East Lincolnshire Council which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please telephone or email the number(s) or address above immediately. Activity and use of the North East Lincolnshire email system is monitored to secure its effective operation and for other lawful business purposes. Communications using this system will also be monitored and may be recorded to secure effective operation and for other lawful business purposes.
Scanned by Anti Virus Software</span></p> </html>
Have you, or someone you know, been involved in a restoration project? If so, you could be eligible for a Heritage Angel Award, a new scheme backed by Andrew Lloyd Webber to celebrate the people who save our heritage.
Please visit or forward the link http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/caring/heritage-at-risk/English-Heritage-Angel-Awards/ for more information.
|
