|
Post by kevinlarkin on Feb 24, 2020 17:31:17 GMT
I wasn't trying to, but I have replicated the problem. It seems to occur if you are re-assigning a ward or wards which have already been previously assigned. Therefore if I complete the current six seats in Bedfordshire and then start creating a seventh in that area, the average remains the same. If I then add a ward from outside the area (ie it has not previously been counted towards the total) only then does it change the averarge to reflect the increased number of seats Thanks Pete, I can see what is causing the problem now and have made a small change to fix it.
|
|
therealriga
Non-Aligned
none
Posts: 2,665
Member is Online
|
Post by therealriga on Feb 24, 2020 19:50:23 GMT
Has anyone done an 11-seat Leicestershire? I came up with two separate plans. Both involved a suburban "Oadby and Wigston" but the second involved more redrawing of the map with four seats for Leicester city, the creation of a Hinckley constituency and combining the leftover bits of Charnwood and Bosworth.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Feb 24, 2020 20:51:10 GMT
Leicestershire would only be entitled to 10 seats under a new review with 650 seats (this assumes Rutland is separated from Melton for parliamentary purposes and instead resurrects the pre-1983 Rutland & Stamford constituency), not 11.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 24, 2020 21:13:35 GMT
Leicestershire would only be entitled to 10 seats under a new review with 650 seats (this assumes Rutland is separated from Melton for parliamentary purposes and instead resurrects the pre-1983 Rutland & Stamford constituency), not 11. Why would you make such an assumption?
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Feb 24, 2020 22:02:19 GMT
Leicestershire would only be entitled to 10 seats under a new review with 650 seats (this assumes Rutland is separated from Melton for parliamentary purposes and instead resurrects the pre-1983 Rutland & Stamford constituency), not 11. Why would you make such an assumption? It actually works better that way: - Leicester = 3.06
- Remainder of Leicestershire = 7.20 (does not need Rutland (0.40))
- South Holland, Boston, East Lindsey, and West Lindsey = 4.04 (does not need the Deepings)
- Lincoln, North Kesteven, and South Kesteven = 3.51 (really needs Rutland to get this to 3.91)
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 24, 2020 23:19:07 GMT
I'd want to consider the North Lincolnshire Unitaries with the rest of Lincolnshire which would change those equations presumably
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Feb 24, 2020 23:32:14 GMT
Ashby-de-la-Zouch would surely object to a redrawn NW Leicestershire constituency just being called "Coalville" (see also Wigston; what about Oadby?).
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 24, 2020 23:36:50 GMT
Ashby-de-la-Zouch would surely object to a redrawn NW Leicestershire constituency just being called "Coalville" (see also Wigston; what about Oadby?). Well what about Blaby as well? Wigston is central in that seat. The names don't particularly matter here tbh but in as much as they do, I've never been of the Doktorbian school that favours Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey or whatever fuckwitted combination of three or more place names can be contrived
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Feb 24, 2020 23:41:58 GMT
Ashby-de-la-Zouch would surely object to a redrawn NW Leicestershire constituency just being called "Coalville" (see also Wigston; what about Oadby?). Well what about Blaby as well? Wigston is central in that seat. The names don't particularly matter here tbh but in as much as they do, I've never been of the Doktorbian school that favours Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey or whatever fuckwitted combination of three or more place names can be contrived I am not suggesting that. In fact, this is exactly why the Boundary Commission went with compass points for several of the new constituencies for the 2010 election e.g. changing Westbury to South West Wiltshire even though Westbury remained the core of the constituency, and also in the case of Central Devon.
|
|
therealriga
Non-Aligned
none
Posts: 2,665
Member is Online
|
Post by therealriga on Feb 25, 2020 5:57:27 GMT
Leicestershire would only be entitled to 10 seats under a new review with 650 seats (this assumes Rutland is separated from Melton for parliamentary purposes and instead resurrects the pre-1983 Rutland & Stamford constituency), not 11. I was using the parliamentary electorates from December 2019. 4 protected, then UK quota for 646 seats with 8% deviation, ignoring the regions and avoiding cross-county boundaries (only Wirral and Cheshire required it.) Under that route, Leicestershire is entitled to 10.68 and Lincs to 7.53. Of course, under other rules, you'd have Rutland with Lincs, but I was interested to see how 11 worked out for Leics.
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Feb 25, 2020 9:06:13 GMT
I'd want to consider the North Lincolnshire Unitaries with the rest of Lincolnshire which would change those equations presumably Although that adds up to 10.93 without Rutland, that still looks awkward to me: - North Lincolnshire (1.74) + North East Lincolnshire (1.63) = 3.37
- West Lindsey (1.05) + East Lindsey (1.49) = 2.54
- Lincoln = 0.84
- Boston (0.58) + South Holland (0.92) = 1.50
- Norh Kesteven (1.20) + South Kesteven (1.47) = 2.68
Basically the way then to avoid adding Rutland into the mix is to group the parts of Kesteven and Holland (and the City of Lincoln). This would effectively require abolishing the Boston and Skegness constituency and putting about half of South Holland into a constituency with some area in Kesteven. One for the pitchfork bait thread? It's probably less messy overall to group everything except Kesteven for 8.25, then add Kesteven to Rutland for 3.07.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 25, 2020 9:31:48 GMT
Not messy Great Grimsby 66,834 Brigg & Cleethorpes 71,352 Scunthorpe 66,890 Gainsborough 67,481 Louth 67,104 Horncastle 68,161 Holland & Boston 70,416 Stamford & Spalding 69,020 Grantham 69,789 Sleaford 67,689 Lincoln 69,002
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Feb 26, 2020 10:52:24 GMT
Gotten around to playing with it myself. One feature that would be cool to have would be to be able to change the tolerance midships. "This highly reasonable map can be drawn with a 7.5% tolerance. With a 5% tolerance seats x, y, and z are out of bounds and fixing that without splitting wards requires tweaks a, b and c with knockon effects p and q". Obviously only asking for this should the feature be easy to add.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 26, 2020 10:55:08 GMT
Gotten around to playing with it myself. One feature that would be cool to have would be to be able to change the tolerance midships. "This highly reasonable map can be drawn with a 7.5% tolerance. With a 5% tolerance seats x, y, and z are out of bounds and fixing that without splitting wards requires tweaks a, b and c with knockon effects p and q". You want to stop that or you may go blind.
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Feb 26, 2020 12:43:19 GMT
If we're doing feature requests, is there any easy way to get it to select two (or more) regions at once?
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Feb 26, 2020 17:16:05 GMT
I'm toying with regional assemblies and such, with an average of 30k per elector. (all while the British Grenardiers plays in the background) Currently doing the North East. I'm sure I've already mentioned it on this forum, but if any forumers have not yet done so, I recommend reading Bill Norton's book "White Elephant" which tells in wonderful detail the story of the failed NE devolution referendum. The most fascinating aspect of the tale is the role of Dom Cummings and the link with Brexitism. And I can't believe Boundary Assistant has been back up for EIGHT DAYS and I've only just found out! I can finally come off the anti-depressants...
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Feb 26, 2020 17:37:15 GMT
I have had to turn off the background mapping, at least temporarily. MapBox who provide the imagery allow up to 750,000 tile requests per month for free. I thought this would be comfortably enough for our purposes but the limit has been exceeded after just five days. At the current rate of usage it would cost several hundred dollars per month. I was going to ask if there were other options - eg. the OS have some free options - but I guess that you'd have to host the map yourself, thus incurring heavy bandwidth costs. And working cross-platform with Google Maps probably wouldn't work. What about turning on the background mapping for subscribers?
|
|
|
Post by kevinlarkin on Feb 26, 2020 18:59:03 GMT
On the background mapping I am looking into the options but haven't yet found anything that will cost less than £200 per month, given the current level of use. Most of the providers have put up their prices massively since Google's 300% hike around 18 months ago.
There are a few features that I wanted to include in this release but have been held over. One of these is to modify the plan parameters, not only the permitted variation but also the number of seats and the plan name (which would then become the default when saving the plan). I also want to restore the ability to select multiple wards by drawing a rectangle or circle, and add a tool to import and convert to the new format plans created under the old version if they are still lurking in your device's local storage.
As far as creating plans that span more than one region, this is quite feasible but there is a big implication for bandwidth. Also I do not subscribe to the so-called 'historic counties' stuff, so it is not a priority for me. Let's wait and see what the next review decides.
|
|
|
Post by kevinlarkin on Mar 3, 2020 17:52:05 GMT
Thanks to the suggestion from Adrian I have found a way of using Google as a background map in a way that complies with their terms of service. Google charges on the basis of map loads with a free usage limit of 28,000 per month. I have set a cap of just under 1,000 loads per day after which the background map won't show but everything else should continue to work. Some people appear to be using links to the old census statistics and election results pages to access the site. These are currently redirecting to the home page but I am going to clear out these old files shortly, so make sure any bookmarks or favourites are pointing to boundaryassistant.org
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Mar 3, 2020 18:30:42 GMT
Thanks to the suggestion from Adrian I have found a way of using Google as a background map in a way that complies with their terms of service. Google charges on the basis of map loads with a free usage limit of 28,000 per month. I have set a cap of just under 1,000 loads per day after which the background map won't show but everything else should continue to work. If that proves problematic, it's probably worth looking into using OpenStreetMap as the background map.
|
|