[OSGeo Africa] Municipal boundary demarcation
Ray Schaller
rschaller at nwpg.gov.za
Wed Jul 20 23:00:46 PDT 2016
Hi all
The issue of boundaries matching the cadaster layer also applies to Protected Areas. We have PA boundaries that bisect parent farms that we know are not part of the Protected Area. It would be great if all our administrative boundaries matched the cadaster.
Regards
Ray
Ray Schaller
Conservation Planner
NW READ
Department Rural, Environment and Agricultural Development
North West Provincial Government
Republic of South Africa
Tel: +27-18-389-5324
Cell: +27-82-375-9934
Email: rschaller at nwpg.gov.za
>>> "Antony Cooper" <ACooper at csir.co.za> 07/20/16 7:49 PM >>>
Hi All
This is obviously a very important issue and I will hopefully remember
to raise it in the CSI. The CSI did identify the MDB as the custodian
for ward, municipal, provincial and national boundaries - but the MDB
did not nominate a delegate to the CSI.
I think that this problem actually goes back decades, long before
digital data! So, the legislation was drafted by people who expected to
draw lines (with pens effectively many metres thick) on paper maps for
doing demarcations. It was generally never really a problem, because
the population centres were so much smaller then and far apart.
The current crop of legislators are unlikely to be skilled at using
digital geospatial data, so they probably still have that ancient
perspective on how to mark off areas. With all the planners that are on
the Board of the MDB, one would hope that they would be sufficiently
spatially literate to use the cadastre as the basis for demarcation.
However, demarcation is primarily a party-political process fraught with
compromise and suspicion and mistrust and hidden agendas and so on.
What is needed is to change the legislative process so that demarcating
of any form is not a matter of drawing lines, but is one of aggregating
together areas (hopefully, sensible ones such as cadastral units) and
where necessary, creating new areas (eg: in areas where the cadastre is
too coarse).
In a similar vein, it is my understanding that the new border along the
middle of the Orange River between South Africa and Namibia was surveyed
a long time ago - but the politicians have not yet made the change. So,
the border is still on the northern bank and the whole river there
belongs to South Africa ....
Regards
Antony Cooper
--
Spatial Planning and Systems
CSIR Built Environment
PO Box 395
PRETORIA
0001
South Africa
Telephone: +27 12 841 4121
Cellular: +27 82 497 3812
Email: acooper at csir.co.za
>>> On 20 July 2016 at 16:29, in message
<028601d1e293$1872ed70$4958c850$@land-surveyors.com>, "Peter Newmarch"
<newmarch at land-surveyors.com> wrote:
> All,
>
>
>
> I agree that the scale of published maps is not very accurate,
that*s why
> they have it downloadable in shapefiles. Admittedly not captured with
great
> precision with respect to the cadaster and other features.
>
>
>
> The Act says that when determining the boundaries, the board must
take into
> account a whole long list of factors including the *existing and
proposed
> functional boundaries*.* (presumably things like cadastral
boundaries amongst
> others) * including the public consultation process.
>
>
>
> They do not publish their weightings to each criteria that they must
assess
> before arriving at the final shapefile. It would be very wrong to
simply
> adjust it to the cadastral line when one does not know the weighting
they
> applied to each of the factors they had to consider including public
input.
> Perhaps in consultation with a municipality, the municipality could
have told
> them they wanted to put a future road along that boundary and so the
> demarcation board left that *buffer*. Perhaps in other cases the
demarcation
> board has digitized a stream/river directly off imagery and that
river has
> moved with respect to the cadastral boundary.
>
>
>
> Even in cases where it*s clear as daylight that the demarcation
data and
> cadastral data should align, if could well be that in rural areas,
they may
> have followed ground information such as the induna areas of the
tribal
> authority * which by the way, in most cases does not follow
cadastral
> boundaries anyway. I have picked up on a few occasions, on housing
jobs, this
> difference and its quite rational as it*s based on the peoples
loyalty to
> different indunas and chiefs.
>
>
>
> The word *cadastral* does not even appear in the act * surely
if they
> intended it to follow such, they would simply just say so. Rather
they use
> *functional boundaries* * which actually makes sense as it
allows
> consideration of a whole host of other factors in their
determination.
>
>
>
> It would be wrong to adjust any demarcation data, without evaluating
the
> same criteria and information that was on hand to determine the
limits in the
> first place * to do so would be in violation of the act as the act
lays down
> all the considerations to take into account.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> From: David Barkhuisen [mailto:dave at kirchhoffsurveyors.co.za]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 2:55 PM
> To: newmarch at land-surveyors.com; Africa local chapter discussions
> <africa at lists.osgeo.org>
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo Africa] Municipal boundary demarcation
>
>
>
> Hi
>
> The gazette maps do not describe the area in an accurate manner such
as the
> way a survey diagram or mining/prospecting diagram does with a
diagram and
> accurate coordinate list. The gazette maps certainly don't involve
much
> accuracy seeing as the Ethekwini gazette map in the link below is not
drawn
> to scale.
>
>
http://www.demarcation.org.za/index.php/downloads/boundary-data/kwazulu-nata
> l-4/eth-1/detailed-ward-maps-156/2994-eth-ward-1/file
>
> Regards
>
> David
>
> On 20/07/2016 13:47, Peter Newmarch wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
>
>
> The demarcation data is fixed. Its Gazetted as a map and not by
cadastral
> boundaries or features. The land might for rating purposes fall in
JHB, but
> for approvel purposes (SPLUMA) wherever the development falls
spatially in
> terms of the municipal demarcation data * then that is the
municipality.
>
>
>
> I recently saw a case where a parent property was in Municpality A,
but the
> new sub was Municpality B * because of the mismatch between the
data.
>
>
>
> Municipal data is determined by people numbers, while the intention
might be
> to follow certain cadastral lines, its unfortunately not Gazetted
that way
> and so leaves no room for any interpretation whatsoever * its fixed
in
> absolute terms.
>
>
>
> I know of two cases where very large farms are split down the middle
because
> of municipal demarcation lines * but remains one property. I have
never
> checked if the farms themselves appear in both municipal rates rolls,
but
> certainly they have ward councillors from different municipalities on
the
> same land parcel.
>
>
>
> If you want to rectify the situation, you have to apply to amend the
> demarcation limits of the city and follow that process.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> From: Africa [mailto:africa-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of
Chris
> Kirchhoff
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 9:12 AM
> To: 'Africa local chapter discussions'
<mailto:africa at lists.osgeo.org>
> <africa at lists.osgeo.org>
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo Africa] Municipal boundary demarcation
>
>
>
> Thanks Aslam,
>
> I have downloaded the shape files from the Demarcation board website
and the
> Government Gazette
>
>
>
> The problem that arises is that the Demarcation board Shape file
Municipal
> boundary line , the property boundary line based on the Surveyor
General
> digital boundary data and the actual WGS 84 coordinates as defined on
the
> approved Surveyor General diagram that define the property boundary
are not
> consistent.
>
>
>
> The Demarcation board Shape file municipal boundary line shows the
Tshwane
> municipal boundary running inside a farm boundary by some 30m.
>
>
>
> This farm is supposed to be inside Johannesburg municipality.
>
>
>
> The Johannesburg municipality wishes to build a 30m wide road along
the farm
> boundary but now sees that part of the road would fall inside Tshwane
> municipality according to the Demarcation board Shape file municipal
> boundary line.
>
>
>
> I would assume the obvious response is that the Municipal boundary
should
> be contiguous with property boundaries, however I can find no
legislation
> that clearly sates this ?
>
>
>
> Would you have some thoughts on how to resolve this ?
>
>
>
> **************...
>
> Chris Kirchhoff
> Professional Land Surveyor
> Tel : 082-773 4868
> <mailto:chris at kirchhoffsurveyors.co.za>
chris at kirchhoffsurveyors.co.za
> <http://www.kirchhoffsurveyors.co.za/> www.kirchhoffsurveyors.co.za
>
> We believe good spatial information leads to superior planning,
diminished
> project risks, improved feasibility assessments and efficient
resource
> utilisation.
>
>
>
> From: Africa [mailto:africa-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of
Aslam
> Parker
> Sent: 20 July 2016 08:38 AM
> To: Africa local chapter discussions <africa at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:africa at lists.osgeo.org> >
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo Africa] Municipal boundary demarcation
>
>
>
> Dear Colleagues
>
>
>
> The Municipal Demarcation Board <http://www.demarcation.org.za/>
> http://www.demarcation.org.za/ is the only authoritative source of
> Demarcation data in South Africa
>
>
>
> The Board*s mandate derives from:
>
> The Constitution Of The Republic Of South Africa, 1996 (Act No 108 Of
1996).
>
>
> The Board is mandated in terms of section 155(3)(b) to determine
municipal
> Boundaries independently.
>
> Local Government: Municipal Demarcation Act, 1998 (Act No 27 Of
1998)
>
>
>
> The latest boundary data (shapefiles) can be downloaded from
> http://www.demarcation.org.za/index.php/downloads/boundary-data
>
>
>
> We are also encouraged to carefully scrutinise the Section 21 of the
Local
> Government: Municipal Demarcation Act 27 of 1998 the Municipal
Demarcation
> Board which graphically shows re-determined the municipal boundaries.
In
> most cases the boundary changes seems small and insignificant, but
can have
> significant socio-political, as well as planning implications.
> http://www.demarcation.org.za/site/?page_id=14588
>
> A Good example :
>
> * In terms of Section 21 of the Local Government: Municipal
Demarcation Act
> 27 of 1998 the Municipal Demarcation Board has re-determined the
municipal
> boundaries of Mnquma Local Municipality (EC122) and Mbhashe Local M
> unicipality (EC121) , by excluding the Administrative areas of
Mhlahlana,
> Nkonkwana,KwaMente, and KwaNkanga from the municipal area of Mnquma
Local
> Municipality (EC122), and by including them into the municipal area
of
> Mbhashe Local M unicipality (EC121).* The example map can be
accessed at
>
http://www.demarcation.org.za/index.php/municipal-boundaries/section-21-maps-
> and-notices/ec-sec21-dems/1104-dem4037-bpfc-sec21/file
>
>
>
>
>
> Aslam Parker | Director: Geo-spatial Information and Professional
Support
> |Chief Directorate: National Geo-spatial Information | Department of
Rural
> Development and Land Reform | <http://www.ngi.gov.za/>
www.ngi.gov.za| Cape
> Town|
>
> Tel +27 21 658 4302| Fax +27 21 689 1351| Mobile 082 331 8501|
> aslam.parker at drdlr.gov.za <mailto:aslam.parker at drdlr.gov.za>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Africa [mailto:africa-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of
Lydia du
> Toit
> Sent: 20 July 2016 07:44 AM
> To: Africa local chapter discussions
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo Africa] Municipal boundary demarcation
>
>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> Contact the Demarcation Board, or download from their website.
>
> They have the 2011 and 2016 boundaries available.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Lydia Du Toit (Pr GISc)
> Mobile: 0832713158
> Email: Lydiadt at mweb.co.za <mailto:Lydiadt at mweb.co.za> or
>
> From: Chris Kirchhoff <mailto:chris at kirchhoffsurveyors.co.za>
>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 5:41 AM
>
> To: 'Africa local chapter discussions'
<mailto:africa at lists.osgeo.org>
>
> Subject: [OSGeo Africa] Municipal boundary demarcation
>
>
>
> Hi
>
> Is there a formal/ legal source of municipal boundary positions
especially
> for boundary between Johannesburg and Tshwane municipalities
>
> Thanks
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> **************...
>
> Chris Kirchhoff
> Professional Land Surveyor
> Tel : 082-773 4868
> <mailto:chris at kirchhoffsurveyors.co.za>
chris at kirchhoffsurveyors.co.za
> <http://www.kirchhoffsurveyors.co.za/> www.kirchhoffsurveyors.co.za
>
> We believe good spatial information leads to superior planning,
diminished
> project risks, improved feasibility assessments and efficient
resource
> utilisation.
> _______________________________________________
> Africa mailing list
> Africa at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Africa at lists.osgeo.org>
> You can UNSUBSCRIBE at http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/africa
>
_______________________________________________
Africa mailing list
Africa at lists.osgeo.org
You can UNSUBSCRIBE at http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/africa
Disclaimer
"This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain information which is confidential, private or privilege in nature and it is for the sole use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you must immediately notify the sender via electronic mail and further refrain from reading, disseminating, distributing, copying or using this message or any of its transmitted files. Any views of this message and its transmitted files are those of the sender unless the sender specifically states such views to be those of the North-West Provincial Government. Though this message and its transmitted files have been swept for the presence of computer viruses, the North-West Provincial Government accepts no liability whatsoever for any loss, damage or expenses resulting directly or indirectly from the use or access of this message or any of its transmitted files."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/africa/attachments/20160721/05a03e21/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Africa
mailing list