[Talk-GB] weeklyOSM #420 2018-07-31-2018-08-06

[weeklyteam]

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 420,
is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all things 
happening in the openstreetmap world:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/10586/

Enjoy!

weeklyOSM? 
who?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
where?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] vehicle barrier

[Martin Wynne]

On 10/08/2018 15:08, Edward Catmur wrote:

Oh, I'd map that as barrier=cycle_barrier without hesitation - it's even
made of the archetypal aluminium tubing.


Ok, will do. It's just that if you asked the residents I don't think 
they intended it primarily to deter furious cycling. Its purpose is 
clearly to prevent through motor traffic.


On the other hand there must have been some reason for the double row of 
railings. But you could stand there all day and not see a cyclist. It's 
a residential area, not on a route from anywhere to anywhere else. And 
there is plenty of room for an occasional cyclist and pedestrians to 
co-exist.


p.s. they are usually galvanised steel, not aluminium.

cheers,

Martin.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] vehicle barrier

[Edward Catmur]

If you don't like barrier=cycle_barrier, there's also barrier=chicane - I'd
consider barrier=cycle_barrier to be a subset of barrier=chicane. But then
you'd definitely need to provide comprehensive access tags.

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 3:08 PM Edward Catmur 
wrote:

>
> Oh, I'd map that as barrier=cycle_barrier without hesitation - it's even
> made of the archetypal aluminium tubing.
>
> The fact that it's across a road rather than a "path, footway, cycleway or
> track" is a pretty minor point compared to construction and intent. For
> prior art see e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2512940470 (visible
> on Bing at
> https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=d6b54d2c-03ad-4ada-8b8a-ef341a40ee71=51.498781~-0.092815=19=120.2292=-6.162716=x=z.0=2=2=S00027
> - a bit more ornate, but that's Southwark, and Trinity Church Square is a
> conservation area).
>
> I don't think it matters that pedestrians can bypass it - it still retains
> its principal function of barring motor vehicles (and, presumably, slowing
> down cyclists).
>
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:36 PM Martin Wynne  wrote:
>
>>  > The description of barrier=cycle_barrier in the wiki looks like
>>  > it might be what you need, combined with appropriate access tags.
>>
>>  > I'd say that's a cycle barrier - the intention would be to allow
>>  > pedestrians to pass, force cyclists to dismount
>>
>> Thanks for the suggestions.
>>
>> For cycle_barrier the wiki says "barriers positioned along paths,
>> footways, cycleways or tracks".
>>
>> In this case it is none of those ways, it is a full width road with
>> vehicle access to both sides. But one side is private access and the
>> other is public access (from the other ends).
>>
>> I believe this barrier has been erected by the residents of the private
>> road, rather than the local authority. It's not clear what it achieves
>> which a conventional row of bollards would not.
>>
>> Here's the Google streetview:
>>
>>   https://goo.gl/maps/DGjTum7ynGE2
>>
>> (I haven't mapped it from Google, I actually walked through it
>> yesterday. :) )
>>
>> As you can see, it has been rendered totally ineffective for other than
>> motor vehicles by users pushing past one end. How do we map that?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Martin.
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[David Woolley]

On 10/08/18 13:00, Martin Wynne wrote:
In this area I was taken to task for adjusting an unexplained boundary, 
which turned out to be the local "PlusBus" area boundary for inclusive 
fares from the nearest railway station


That's likely to be subject to database rights, as I don't think that it 
is normal to sign stops with whether or not they are in the area.


In any case an actual boundary can only be obtained from another map, 
not from the ground.  The best you could do on the ground is identify 
the finite set of existing stops that are in the area.



postal counties


These no longer exist.  All you need to fully address mail is the 
postcode plus the two character delivery point suffix, within that post 
code (which is usually, but not necessarily, a simple encoding of the 
house number, although not in base 10).  In practice, though, the postie 
actually wants the street name as well, as I used just post code and 
house number on the return to sender address, and got a note that it 
takes an extra day to find the street.


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] vehicle barrier

[Edward Catmur]

Oh, I'd map that as barrier=cycle_barrier without hesitation - it's even
made of the archetypal aluminium tubing.

The fact that it's across a road rather than a "path, footway, cycleway or
track" is a pretty minor point compared to construction and intent. For
prior art see e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2512940470 (visible
on Bing at
https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=d6b54d2c-03ad-4ada-8b8a-ef341a40ee71=51.498781~-0.092815=19=120.2292=-6.162716=x=z.0=2=2=S00027
- a bit more ornate, but that's Southwark, and Trinity Church Square is a
conservation area).

I don't think it matters that pedestrians can bypass it - it still retains
its principal function of barring motor vehicles (and, presumably, slowing
down cyclists).

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:36 PM Martin Wynne  wrote:

>  > The description of barrier=cycle_barrier in the wiki looks like
>  > it might be what you need, combined with appropriate access tags.
>
>  > I'd say that's a cycle barrier - the intention would be to allow
>  > pedestrians to pass, force cyclists to dismount
>
> Thanks for the suggestions.
>
> For cycle_barrier the wiki says "barriers positioned along paths,
> footways, cycleways or tracks".
>
> In this case it is none of those ways, it is a full width road with
> vehicle access to both sides. But one side is private access and the
> other is public access (from the other ends).
>
> I believe this barrier has been erected by the residents of the private
> road, rather than the local authority. It's not clear what it achieves
> which a conventional row of bollards would not.
>
> Here's the Google streetview:
>
>   https://goo.gl/maps/DGjTum7ynGE2
>
> (I haven't mapped it from Google, I actually walked through it
> yesterday. :) )
>
> As you can see, it has been rendered totally ineffective for other than
> motor vehicles by users pushing past one end. How do we map that?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Martin.
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Colin Smale]

On 2018-08-10 15:35, Mark Goodge wrote:

> On 10/08/2018 13:14, Colin Smale wrote:
> 
>> Who is the arbiter of relevance? I think for any given "mapper" or 
>> "consumer" 99% of the contents of OSM is not relevant. People are mapping 
>> the nuts and bolts of the insulators on electricity pylons.. I can't see 
>> that being relevant to most people.
> 
> Can you see the nuts and bolts?
> 
> I don't think there's any real argument about whether or not we map things we 
> can see. There may be disagreements about *how* we map them, but the basic 
> principle that we map what is visible is, I think, pretty firmly established.
> 
> The basic question here is how we go about mapping things which you can't see 
> - intangibles, such as administrative boundaries, postcodes, road numbers, 
> etc. And that's where questions of relevance come into it.

And by extension the dilemma where what is visible is demonstrably
wrong, e.g. a typo on a street name sign. If we stick to exactly what we
see, we propagate the error. If we apply a bit of QC and make the street
name consistent, we have a better map. 

> The basic principle of OSM is that it is free, in all possible senses. 
> It's free, but it isn't unrestrained. You can't just make up entries. You 
> can't put Ambridge and Hogwarts on the map (although you can, now, include 
> Platform 9 3/4). You can't label a road as a river and a wood as a 
> skyscraper. To be useful, we have to agree to a common set of principles and 
> then stick to them.

Yes you can, until and unless it gets noticed. There are no barriers to
creative, erroneous or downright mischievous tagging - except "social
control" by others, which is very hit-and-miss. In some areas mappers
may have "adopted" their town and monitor every change in a defined
area, and in other cases people might monitor the whole world for a
specific object type. But my suspicion is that most objects in most
places are scarcely "policed" in any way. It would be nice (IMHO) if
this ex-post moderation itself were to be monitored, to help ensure that
every little corner of OSM has somebody/something keeping an eye on it
to detect anomalous mapping, and all the "moderators" (human or
otherwise) worked to consistent standards. But then we get back to the
nub of the problem: who defines these standards, and thereby codifies
what is right and wrong? Nobody wants to burn their fingers on this
proactively, so we are stuck with a patchy, reactive system and the most
incredible inertia which kills many attempts to improve data
consistency. Sacrificing the good on the altar of the perfect...___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Mark Goodge]

On 10/08/2018 13:14, Colin Smale wrote:

Who is the arbiter of relevance? I think for any given "mapper" or 
"consumer" 99% of the contents of OSM is not relevant. People are 
mapping the nuts and bolts of the insulators on electricity pylons.. I 
can't see that being relevant to most people.


Can you see the nuts and bolts?

I don't think there's any real argument about whether or not we map 
things we can see. There may be disagreements about *how* we map them, 
but the basic principle that we map what is visible is, I think, pretty 
firmly established.


The basic question here is how we go about mapping things which you 
can't see - intangibles, such as administrative boundaries, postcodes, 
road numbers, etc. And that's where questions of relevance come into it.


The basic principle of OSM is that it is free, in all possible senses. 


It's free, but it isn't unrestrained. You can't just make up entries. 
You can't put Ambridge and Hogwarts on the map (although you can, now, 
include Platform 9 3/4). You can't label a road as a river and a wood as 
a skyscraper. To be useful, we have to agree to a common set of 
principles and then stick to them.


Mark

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] vehicle barrier

[Martin Wynne]

> The description of barrier=cycle_barrier in the wiki looks like
> it might be what you need, combined with appropriate access tags.

> I'd say that's a cycle barrier - the intention would be to allow
> pedestrians to pass, force cyclists to dismount

Thanks for the suggestions.

For cycle_barrier the wiki says "barriers positioned along paths, 
footways, cycleways or tracks".


In this case it is none of those ways, it is a full width road with 
vehicle access to both sides. But one side is private access and the 
other is public access (from the other ends).


I believe this barrier has been erected by the residents of the private 
road, rather than the local authority. It's not clear what it achieves 
which a conventional row of bollards would not.


Here's the Google streetview:

 https://goo.gl/maps/DGjTum7ynGE2

(I haven't mapped it from Google, I actually walked through it 
yesterday. :) )


As you can see, it has been rendered totally ineffective for other than 
motor vehicles by users pushing past one end. How do we map that?


Thanks.

Martin.



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Andrew Hain]

Postal counties (mainly a outer London and Manchester thing in this context) 
are essentially defunct.

--
Andrew

From: Martin Wynne 
Sent: 10 August 2018 13:00:40
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

> The "historic" boundaries, though, whatever particular snapshot of them
> you choose as the most important one, don't have any relevance to
> everyday life.

Are not some of them still relevant to post-code areas and postal counties?

Lots of useful stuff appears on OSM for which there is nothing physical
on the ground. Bus stops in rural areas are frequently timetabled as
"Rose & Crown" or the name of a side road. There is nothing on the ground.

In this area I was taken to task for adjusting an unexplained boundary,
which turned out to be the local "PlusBus" area boundary for inclusive
fares from the nearest railway station:

  http://plusbus.info/

Martin.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Colin Smale]

On 2018-08-10 13:37, Mark Goodge wrote:

> On 10/08/2018 12:05, John Aldridge wrote:I'd like to register a +1 in favour 
> of accepting these historic counties.
> 
> I *generally* agree with your principle of 'only mapping what is on the 
> ground', but if we followed that strictly we wouldn't map current 
> administrative boundaries either. These historic counties do, rightly or 
> wrongly, form part of some people's sense of identity *today*, and I think 
> that crosses the bar for inclusion.
> The current administrative boundaries are relevant to everyday life in a 
> number of different ways. Even if you can't see them on the ground, the 
> boundaries determine who collects your bins, who you can vote for, who fixes 
> the potholes in the roads, who manages school admissions, etc.
> 
> The "historic" boundaries, though, whatever particular snapshot of them you 
> choose as the most important one, don't have any relevance to everyday life. 
> They do matter to a small number of people with specialist uses, but - like 
> now-obliterated routes of former railways - they are better suited to a 
> spin-off project rather than being in the core OSM.

Who is the arbiter of relevance? I think for any given "mapper" or
"consumer" 99% of the contents of OSM is not relevant. People are
mapping the nuts and bolts of the insulators on electricity pylons.. I
can't see that being relevant to most people. 

The basic principle of OSM is that it is free, in all possible senses.
There is no up-front right and wrong, nor good and bad; anything goes
unless and until it is noticed and challenged for crossing some
poorly-defined boundary. Often it is the well-intentioned mapper who
opens a discussion prior to adding their favourite information who is
the victim; I expect most mappers just "get on with it" and are never
challenged, however esoteric their mapping. I wish we could be more
consistent in this, but it will probably never happen because of our
collective allergy to limiting mappers' creative freedoms.___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Dave F]

Hi

On 10/08/2018 12:05, John Aldridge wrote:
I *generally* agree with your principle of 'only mapping what is on 
the ground', but if we followed that strictly we wouldn't map current 
administrative boundaries either. 


That isn't the correct mantra.

"OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both /real and 
current"/


https://www.openstreetmap.org/welcome

The admin boundaries we map are both real, as set out in legislation, & 
current.


The historic boundaries recently added are not current, their "origins 
lie in antiquity." They are not "used for the purposes of 
administrative, geographical and political demarcation."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counties_of_the_United_Kingdom

These historic counties do, rightly or wrongly, form part of some 
people's sense of identity *today*, and I think that crosses the bar 
for inclusion.


But they don't cross OSM's bar.

I'm struggling to fathom how 1888 can be considered "today", and I'm 
unsure how someone's 'sense of identity' is relevant to what is mapped.


'wrongly' is not a reason for inclusion.

Cheers
DaveF



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Martin Wynne]

The "historic" boundaries, though, whatever particular snapshot of them 
you choose as the most important one, don't have any relevance to 
everyday life.


Are not some of them still relevant to post-code areas and postal counties?

Lots of useful stuff appears on OSM for which there is nothing physical 
on the ground. Bus stops in rural areas are frequently timetabled as 
"Rose & Crown" or the name of a side road. There is nothing on the ground.


In this area I was taken to task for adjusting an unexplained boundary, 
which turned out to be the local "PlusBus" area boundary for inclusive 
fares from the nearest railway station:


 http://plusbus.info/

Martin.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Mark Goodge]

On 10/08/2018 12:05, John Aldridge wrote:

I'd like to register a +1 in favour of accepting these historic counties.

I *generally* agree with your principle of 'only mapping what is on the 
ground', but if we followed that strictly we wouldn't map current 
administrative boundaries either. These historic counties do, rightly or 
wrongly, form part of some people's sense of identity *today*, and I 
think that crosses the bar for inclusion.


The current administrative boundaries are relevant to everyday life in a 
number of different ways. Even if you can't see them on the ground, the 
boundaries determine who collects your bins, who you can vote for, who 
fixes the potholes in the roads, who manages school admissions, etc.


The "historic" boundaries, though, whatever particular snapshot of them 
you choose as the most important one, don't have any relevance to 
everyday life. They do matter to a small number of people with 
specialist uses, but - like now-obliterated routes of former railways - 
they are better suited to a spin-off project rather than being in the 
core OSM.


Mark

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[John Aldridge]

I'd like to register a +1 in favour of accepting these historic counties.

I *generally* agree with your principle of 'only mapping what is on the 
ground', but if we followed that strictly we wouldn't map current 
administrative boundaries either. These historic counties do, rightly or 
wrongly, form part of some people's sense of identity *today*, and I 
think that crosses the bar for inclusion.


--
Cheers,
John

On 10-Aug-18 09:38, Stuart Reynolds wrote:

Hi

I’ve watched this from afar, but thought that I would add my two 
pennyworth, as a more casual mapper.


Historic county boundaries have some merit (in a very general sense), 
but where do you draw the line? As it happens, I was discussing where, 
exactly, Middlesex was with my son only yesterday, and I looked it up on 
Wikipedia. Turns out that Middlesex has changed quite significantly over 
time. First of all, it existed. Then, some of it got plonked into London 
- and it had already lost the City of London and Westminster by then. 
Bits of it got hived off to Hertfordshire. Then the rest of it got 
incorporated into Greater London. So what would you map, historically? 
Do you map every single variation of it, and try and date them all? If 
you were going to map historic counties properly, then you must.


But think what this does to the data. Think what this does for the new 
mapper (who we are trying to encourage). There is now a mass of 
overlapping, conflicting entities to edit. You need to go through every 
one, laboriously, working out which ones you need to edit, and which 
ones you need to leave alone. It’s a data management nightmare, and the 
chances of the wrong thing being edited, or being edited incorrectly, 
rises exponentially.


Personally, I have never particularly liked the variety of ways that OSM 
attempts to map disused / demolished entities (e.g. bus station 
rebuilds, etc) even now. I am firmly of the opinion that we should be 
mapping existing, current, objects, and that things that don’t exist on 
the ground should be ripped out. If OSM as an organisation wants to take 
annual snapshots for posterity, or to set up a separate “historic OSM” 
then I am all for it - I won’t be mapping in it, myself, although I 
would have an interest in using it. As in my Middlesex example, though, 
you would still have data management issues unless you compartmentalise 
it by year - but that is a whole new interface or workflow.


So I am very strongly in favour of NOT mapping historic counties, and 
only mapping what is on the ground (or verifiably shortly to be there, 
as in new builds)


Stuart


On 10 Aug 2018, at 09:24, Sean Blanchflower > wrote:



I guess you at least acknowledge that not everyone agrees with your 
views below though.


A quick factual error though: the traditional/historic counties were 
not administrative in the sense that current areas are. The changes of 
the Local Government Act 1888 were to create administrative areas for 
the first time, and it was the fact that they were called 'counties' 
that has caused all the trouble since then. The government 
acknowledged that the new areas were distinct from the existing 
counties and were not replacing them, and in fact the Ordnance Survey 
continued to print them on maps after then.


How do we reach some compromise here? We seem to be at an impasse.

> I'm sorry, but this is complete and utter bullshit. The "historic" 
> county boundaries are no more "real" than the current ones. They were, 
> at the time, the administrative boundaries. They are no longer the 
> administrative boundaries.

>
> I do appreciate that there are matters where the historic boundaries are 
> relevant (primarily genealogical research). But that's not really a 
> mapping issue., And the emotional attachment to the pre-1974 boundaries 
> is just that - emotion, not based on any objective assessment. And the 
> fact that, in retrospect, the 1970s changes were over-reaching and did a 
> lot of harm does not change that.

>
> Describing the historic boundaries as "real" is like insisting that we 
> map, say, the old Euston station the way it was before it was rebuilt, 
> because it was a lot nicer then. It may well be the case that it was. 
> But we map what exists now, not what existed in the past and in 
> rose-tinted memory. The same with county (and other administrative) 
> boundaries. We map what is, not what was.



On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 3:49 PM Sean Blanchflower > wrote:


Hi all,
I'm smb1001 and have been adding the traditional county boundaries
recently. DaveF kindly let me know of the discussion thread here
so I've joined Talk-GB to add my side of things.

I'm not alone in thinking the traditional county boundaries have a
place on current maps. It's unfortunate here that these counties
are known as 'historic counties' as this implies that they are no
longer extant. The debate as to their current 

[Talk-GB] vehicle barrier

[Martin Wynne]

What is the correct tagging for this type of barrier across a road? Two 
lengths of parallel railings with a narrow opening at alternate ends. 
Blocking vehicles but allowing pedestrian access:


___
|___   |


In the particular instance a public road makes an end-on connection with 
a private unadopted road, although both have the same name. It is just 
about possible for pedal bicycles to get through, although I suspect it 
is not intended.


At present I have it has two separate barriers =fence with a short 
length of footpath between them. But clearly it is in fact a single 
construction. And fence suggests a total barrier, so connecting a 
footpath to a fence doesn't make sense.


Thanks,

Martin.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[David Woolley]

On 10/08/18 09:38, Stuart Reynolds wrote:

If OSM as an organisation wants to take annual snapshots for posterity,


You are confusing two different things here.

1) Things that were never current during the lifetime of OSM;

2) Things that have ceased to exist after being mapped.

The latter are never removed from OSM; they are simply not returned by 
standard API queries for the contents of an are.  Redactions apart, the 
database still contains the previously mapped versions of things that 
were mapped and then "deleted".


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Sean Blanchflower]

I completely agree that to map every iteration is of no merit, and that's
never been the aim. There's an accepted definition of the boundaries
(Historic Counties Trust) that by definition will never change. The
Middlesex changes were to the administrative boundaries. The traditional
boundaries remained constant through that.

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 9:38 AM Stuart Reynolds <
stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk> wrote:

> Hi
>
> I’ve watched this from afar, but thought that I would add my two
> pennyworth, as a more casual mapper.
>
> Historic county boundaries have some merit (in a very general sense), but
> where do you draw the line? As it happens, I was discussing where, exactly,
> Middlesex was with my son only yesterday, and I looked it up on Wikipedia.
> Turns out that Middlesex has changed quite significantly over time. First
> of all, it existed. Then, some of it got plonked into London - and it had
> already lost the City of London and Westminster by then. Bits of it got
> hived off to Hertfordshire. Then the rest of it got incorporated into
> Greater London. So what would you map, historically? Do you map every
> single variation of it, and try and date them all? If you were going to map
> historic counties properly, then you must.
>
> But think what this does to the data. Think what this does for the new
> mapper (who we are trying to encourage). There is now a mass of
> overlapping, conflicting entities to edit. You need to go through every
> one, laboriously, working out which ones you need to edit, and which ones
> you need to leave alone. It’s a data management nightmare, and the chances
> of the wrong thing being edited, or being edited incorrectly, rises
> exponentially.
>
> Personally, I have never particularly liked the variety of ways that OSM
> attempts to map disused / demolished entities (e.g. bus station rebuilds,
> etc) even now. I am firmly of the opinion that we should be mapping
> existing, current, objects, and that things that don’t exist on the ground
> should be ripped out. If OSM as an organisation wants to take annual
> snapshots for posterity, or to set up a separate “historic OSM” then I am
> all for it - I won’t be mapping in it, myself, although I would have an
> interest in using it. As in my Middlesex example, though, you would still
> have data management issues unless you compartmentalise it by year - but
> that is a whole new interface or workflow.
>
> So I am very strongly in favour of NOT mapping historic counties, and only
> mapping what is on the ground (or verifiably shortly to be there, as in new
> builds)
>
> Stuart
>
>
> On 10 Aug 2018, at 09:24, Sean Blanchflower  wrote:
>
>
> I guess you at least acknowledge that not everyone agrees with your views
> below though.
>
> A quick factual error though: the traditional/historic counties were not
> administrative in the sense that current areas are. The changes of the
> Local Government Act 1888 were to create administrative areas for the first
> time, and it was the fact that they were called 'counties' that has caused
> all the trouble since then. The government acknowledged that the new areas
> were distinct from the existing counties and were not replacing them, and
> in fact the Ordnance Survey continued to print them on maps after then.
>
> How do we reach some compromise here? We seem to be at an impasse.
>
> > I'm sorry, but this is complete and utter bullshit. The "historic"
> > county boundaries are no more "real" than the current ones. They were,
> > at the time, the administrative boundaries. They are no longer the
> > administrative boundaries.
> >
> > I do appreciate that there are matters where the historic boundaries are
> > relevant (primarily genealogical research). But that's not really a
> > mapping issue., And the emotional attachment to the pre-1974 boundaries
> > is just that - emotion, not based on any objective assessment. And the
> > fact that, in retrospect, the 1970s changes were over-reaching and did a
> > lot of harm does not change that.
> >
> > Describing the historic boundaries as "real" is like insisting that we
> > map, say, the old Euston station the way it was before it was rebuilt,
> > because it was a lot nicer then. It may well be the case that it was.
> > But we map what exists now, not what existed in the past and in
> > rose-tinted memory. The same with county (and other administrative)
> > boundaries. We map what is, not what was.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 3:49 PM Sean Blanchflower 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> I'm smb1001 and have been adding the traditional county boundaries
>> recently. DaveF kindly let me know of the discussion thread here so I've
>> joined Talk-GB to add my side of things.
>>
>> I'm not alone in thinking the traditional county boundaries have a place
>> on current maps. It's unfortunate here that these counties are known as
>> 'historic counties' as this implies that they are no longer extant. The
>> debate as to their current utility or their 

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi

I’ve watched this from afar, but thought that I would add my two pennyworth, as 
a more casual mapper.

Historic county boundaries have some merit (in a very general sense), but where 
do you draw the line? As it happens, I was discussing where, exactly, Middlesex 
was with my son only yesterday, and I looked it up on Wikipedia. Turns out that 
Middlesex has changed quite significantly over time. First of all, it existed. 
Then, some of it got plonked into London - and it had already lost the City of 
London and Westminster by then. Bits of it got hived off to Hertfordshire. Then 
the rest of it got incorporated into Greater London. So what would you map, 
historically? Do you map every single variation of it, and try and date them 
all? If you were going to map historic counties properly, then you must.

But think what this does to the data. Think what this does for the new mapper 
(who we are trying to encourage). There is now a mass of overlapping, 
conflicting entities to edit. You need to go through every one, laboriously, 
working out which ones you need to edit, and which ones you need to leave 
alone. It’s a data management nightmare, and the chances of the wrong thing 
being edited, or being edited incorrectly, rises exponentially.

Personally, I have never particularly liked the variety of ways that OSM 
attempts to map disused / demolished entities (e.g. bus station rebuilds, etc) 
even now. I am firmly of the opinion that we should be mapping existing, 
current, objects, and that things that don’t exist on the ground should be 
ripped out. If OSM as an organisation wants to take annual snapshots for 
posterity, or to set up a separate “historic OSM” then I am all for it - I 
won’t be mapping in it, myself, although I would have an interest in using it. 
As in my Middlesex example, though, you would still have data management issues 
unless you compartmentalise it by year - but that is a whole new interface or 
workflow.

So I am very strongly in favour of NOT mapping historic counties, and only 
mapping what is on the ground (or verifiably shortly to be there, as in new 
builds)

Stuart


On 10 Aug 2018, at 09:24, Sean Blanchflower 
mailto:smb1...@gmail.com>> wrote:


I guess you at least acknowledge that not everyone agrees with your views below 
though.

A quick factual error though: the traditional/historic counties were not 
administrative in the sense that current areas are. The changes of the Local 
Government Act 1888 were to create administrative areas for the first time, and 
it was the fact that they were called 'counties' that has caused all the 
trouble since then. The government acknowledged that the new areas were 
distinct from the existing counties and were not replacing them, and in fact 
the Ordnance Survey continued to print them on maps after then.

How do we reach some compromise here? We seem to be at an impasse.


> I'm sorry, but this is complete and utter bullshit. The "historic"
> county boundaries are no more "real" than the current ones. They were,
> at the time, the administrative boundaries. They are no longer the
> administrative boundaries.
>
> I do appreciate that there are matters where the historic boundaries are
> relevant (primarily genealogical research). But that's not really a
> mapping issue., And the emotional attachment to the pre-1974 boundaries
> is just that - emotion, not based on any objective assessment. And the
> fact that, in retrospect, the 1970s changes were over-reaching and did a
> lot of harm does not change that.
>
> Describing the historic boundaries as "real" is like insisting that we
> map, say, the old Euston station the way it was before it was rebuilt,
> because it was a lot nicer then. It may well be the case that it was.
> But we map what exists now, not what existed in the past and in
> rose-tinted memory. The same with county (and other administrative)
> boundaries. We map what is, not what was.



On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 3:49 PM Sean Blanchflower 
mailto:smb1...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi all,
I'm smb1001 and have been adding the traditional county boundaries recently. 
DaveF kindly let me know of the discussion thread here so I've joined Talk-GB 
to add my side of things.

I'm not alone in thinking the traditional county boundaries have a place on 
current maps. It's unfortunate here that these counties are known as 'historic 
counties' as this implies that they are no longer extant. The debate as to 
their current utility or their immutability is not one I feel is relevant here 
as there are arguments on both sides, but the Association of British Counties 
summarises it more succinctly than I could in any case (see 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_British_Counties and the many 
links therein).

I have no intention of adding any "historic" boundaries beyond the counties. I 
settled on the (static) definition of "historic counties" used by the Ordnance 
Survey and UK government and was going to stop there.

I would 

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Sean Blanchflower]

I guess you at least acknowledge that not everyone agrees with your views
below though.

A quick factual error though: the traditional/historic counties were not
administrative in the sense that current areas are. The changes of the
Local Government Act 1888 were to create administrative areas for the first
time, and it was the fact that they were called 'counties' that has caused
all the trouble since then. The government acknowledged that the new areas
were distinct from the existing counties and were not replacing them, and
in fact the Ordnance Survey continued to print them on maps after then.

How do we reach some compromise here? We seem to be at an impasse.

> I'm sorry, but this is complete and utter bullshit. The "historic"
> county boundaries are no more "real" than the current ones. They were,
> at the time, the administrative boundaries. They are no longer the
> administrative boundaries.
>
> I do appreciate that there are matters where the historic boundaries are
> relevant (primarily genealogical research). But that's not really a
> mapping issue., And the emotional attachment to the pre-1974 boundaries
> is just that - emotion, not based on any objective assessment. And the
> fact that, in retrospect, the 1970s changes were over-reaching and did a
> lot of harm does not change that.
>
> Describing the historic boundaries as "real" is like insisting that we
> map, say, the old Euston station the way it was before it was rebuilt,
> because it was a lot nicer then. It may well be the case that it was.
> But we map what exists now, not what existed in the past and in
> rose-tinted memory. The same with county (and other administrative)
> boundaries. We map what is, not what was.



On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 3:49 PM Sean Blanchflower  wrote:

> Hi all,
> I'm smb1001 and have been adding the traditional county boundaries
> recently. DaveF kindly let me know of the discussion thread here so I've
> joined Talk-GB to add my side of things.
>
> I'm not alone in thinking the traditional county boundaries have a place
> on current maps. It's unfortunate here that these counties are known as
> 'historic counties' as this implies that they are no longer extant. The
> debate as to their current utility or their immutability is not one I feel
> is relevant here as there are arguments on both sides, but the Association
> of British Counties summarises it more succinctly than I could in any case
> (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_British_Counties and
> the many links therein).
>
> I have no intention of adding any "historic" boundaries beyond the
> counties. I settled on the (static) definition of "historic counties" used
> by the Ordnance Survey and UK government and was going to stop there.
>
> I would also have never started my efforts if the results would have
> littered invisible lines all over the map. Similarly, if there were an
> authoritative trace that could be imported then I'd agree that that also
> should be blocked. The reason I've been doing it is that 99% of the ways
> required to create the counties are already in OSM. Pretty much all I've
> been doing is adding existing (administrative) boundary ways to these new
> 'historic' relations alongside the 'ceremonial' and myriad 'administrative'.
>
> (As an aside, I would also have never started my efforts if I hadn't been
> inspired by finding that the same had been done for other countries.)
>
> I fully agree with Lester's comments on OHM in all this. Without the
> presence of the 'current' OSM database in OHM, it's impossible to get any
> traction there. For example I can't actually add the traditional counties
> to OHM without the current OSM administrative boundaries (county and
> parish). Then again, as he said, if the current OSM set were put there to
> do so, it ends up duplicating the site.
>
> I also agree with DaveF that to add every iteration of former boundaries
> is not for OSM, but I would argue that the addition of the traditional
> counties as defined by this current definition does not fall into that.
> After all, certain councils have already been erecting road signs
> indicating the presence of these county boundaries so why would we not
> reflect that.
>
> I begin to fear I've caused offence in my recent editing, so apologies if
> so. I'm just a keen OSM editor trying to add what I see as a valuable
> omission in its database.
>
> smb1001
>
>
>
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb