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

[Frederik Ramm]

Richard,

On 20.09.2018 00:01, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> From 1974 to 1997, the county of Rutland didn't exist.

It's nice to see such a passionate plea for one particular historic
boundary, and pleas like that are what can give rise to the exceptions I
was talking about.

These exceptions do not, however, mean that it's a free-for-all for all
kinds of historic boundaries. I don't know about Rutland - the way you
say it sounds as if it is, and has always been, crystal clear what is
part of Rutland and what is not. But one participant in this thread has
stated that their particular county boundary has changed many times over
the years. I don't know if the people inhabiting the areas that have
changed hands each time kept a stubborn affection for "their *real*
county" just as you describe the people of Rutland to have done. For the
sake of the argument, let's assume there had been a couple of minor
changes to the boundary of "Rutland County Council District Council"
since 1997. Surely your argument which seems to be based on the romantic
"Rutland that people feel in their hearts" could not be applied as a
reason to store "Rutland County Council District Council in the borders
of 1997", plus "Rutland County Council District Council in the borders
of 1999", and also "Rutland County Council District Council in the
borders of 2003"...?

A line needs to be drawn, because otherwise there *will* be people
mapping these things ("for historic interest"), and they won't stop at
historic administrative boundaries; they will include electoral wards of
all EU elections back to god knows when, parish boundaries from 1905,
and school districts for good measure. And each time it will become more
different to maintain the data. How is someone who moves a river to be
more in line with current aerial imagery supposed to know which of the
23 boundaries using that river should be affected and which not?

All the reasons you have listed were based on popular use. You said
things like "pretty much everyone put their address as ...", "no-one
thinks they live in ..." etc.; at the same time such things are often
not very precise and don't easily lend themselves to drawing boundaries.
The "West Hampstead" you mention is mapped as a point - perhaps
precisely because it has no documented administrative boundary to go
with it but is a "property speculator's construct" as you say?

I think that if case-by-case exceptions are made from our "verifiable on
the ground" rule, then at the very least the object in question must be
important enough (an admin boundary that 30.000 people believe to live
in would qualify, an electoral ward that was abolished in 1905 and is
only remembered by those of the age 120+, not so much), and if someone
wants to map it as a relation (which cannot be done in a fuzzy way) then
it must be sufficiently clear where the boundary is because else we'll
have 10 mappers edit-warring over if a certain address still belongs to
the posh neighbourhood of Silver Springs or to its seedy neighbour,
Golden Showers.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [Talk-GB] 1947 Boundaries

[Adam Snape]

Hi Rob,

Sorry, it was late. The 1 inch maps don't explicitly show rural district
boundaries (though they do show the individual parishes) nor do they name
the areas, so might be of limited use to you. The nearest in date 6 or 25
inch map should be your best bet (the boundaries didn't change much in the
30s-50s). Again, many of these can be found scanned on the NLS website.
Available under a non-commercial use CC licence so might be an issue for
your non-osm purpose. (osm has explicit permission).

Small scale overview maps of administrative divisions can be on a
county-by-county basis under the 'boundary maps' tab on
http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/maps/ (licence is cc-by-sa 4.0).

Adam


On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, 23:51 Adam Snape,  wrote:

> Hi Rob,
>
> Contemporary OS maps showed the borough and district boundaries. The 1"
> New Popular Series dates from around that time. The 6" and 25" maps are
> more detailed but many didn't receive a post-war revision until the 50s. A
> good selection of OS maps is on the National Library of Scotland website.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Adam
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] 1947 Boundaries

[Adam Snape]

Hi Rob,

Contemporary OS maps showed the borough and district boundaries. The 1" New
Popular Series dates from around that time. The 6" and 25" maps are more
detailed but many didn't receive a post-war revision until the 50s. A good
selection of OS maps is on the National Library of Scotland website.

Kind regards,

Adam

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, 23:34 Rob Nickerson,  wrote:

> Like Brian, I am interested if OSM UK can do anything here. I liked his
> suggestion of a vote with a minimum number of people (with work done in
> advance by volunteers on both sides).
>
> In a semi-related note: Does anyone have the admin boundaries (including
> low level such as Borough and District) from 1947? I ask because the
> electricity regions were established in the Electricity Act 1947 and I
> believe they may still be the same (or largely the same). BTW I want these
> for something else - not OSM. But you could argue that if we have public
> transport fare zones in OSM then maybe Electricity Regions make sense too.
>
> Thanks,
> *Rob*
> ___
> 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

[Rob Nickerson]

Like Brian, I am interested if OSM UK can do anything here. I liked his
suggestion of a vote with a minimum number of people (with work done in
advance by volunteers on both sides).

In a semi-related note: Does anyone have the admin boundaries (including
low level such as Borough and District) from 1947? I ask because the
electricity regions were established in the Electricity Act 1947 and I
believe they may still be the same (or largely the same). BTW I want these
for something else - not OSM. But you could argue that if we have public
transport fare zones in OSM then maybe Electricity Regions make sense too.

Thanks,
*Rob*
___
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

[Richard Fairhurst]

Frederik Ramm wrote:
> But we are not fundamentalists, and we do allow exceptions. One 
> obvious exception is current administrative boundaries; they are 
> not easily verifiable on the ground but we're making an exception 
> because of their undoubted usefulness.

From 1974 to 1997, the county of Rutland didn't exist. It was gone. Kaputt.
It was subsumed into Leicestershire, because a county with just 30,000
inhabitants is patently ridiculous etc. etc.

Except for those 23 years, pretty much every one of those 30,000 inhabitants
(including me, from 1984) still put their postal address as "Oakham,
Rutland" or "Cottesmore, Rutland" or whatever. As far as they were concerned
they lived in Rutland. If OSM had existed back then, they would have typed
"Oakham, Rutland" into the search box, and expected Nominatim to give them
the correct response. Not Oakham in the Black Country, or Rutland VT, or
whatever.

In fact, so strong was the local attachment to the idea of Rutland that in
1997 the national Government brought it back. Rutland became a county once
more.[1] It still is one today.[2] It was an admission that for 23 years,
the situation on the ground - i.e. what people called the place - had been
the historic county boundary, not the present-day one. In terms of
geocoding, if not in terms of who collected the rates, the official admin
boundary was... I hesitate to say wrong, but certainly partial.

I'm sure it's different in other European countries where things are more
regulated and where you have fancy shit like official registers of streets
and a written constitution and all that. But placenames in Britain don't
always accord with present-day official documents. London suburbs are the
classic example: shifting, amorphous areas, often named at the whim of
estate agents. "Newham" is an artificial construct with an entire borough
council behind it, whereas "West Hampstead" is a property speculator's
construct (the original speculators being, of course, the Metropolitan
Railway and their ever-advancing Metroland) with little legal standing.[3]
But that doesn't stop us mapping West Hampstead as place=suburb, and that's
good, because thousands of people think they live there, and over on the
other side of town, precisely no-one thinks they live in Newham.

So:

Historic counties can and often do represent genuine, attested, useful
geographic information. If you're proposing to delete them, you need to come
up with a solution that will retain that information.

Or, alternatively, you could stop faffing with Wikipedia-like deletionism
and focus on making the map better. OSM would be a better, and nicer, place
if people went out and did mapping, rather than staying at home and doing
deleting. I might have said that before.[4]

Richard

[1] Though legally it's a unitary district council with the faintly
hilarious title of "Rutland County Council District Council"... go figure
[2] And it was one of the first places we mapped in its entirety!
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Rutland_England/2006_Rutland_Mapping_Party
[3] It belatedly became an electoral ward in 2002, I think.
[4] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2015-August/074009.html .
Fans of Groundhog Day may wish to reread the whole railroad thread.



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html

___
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]

Richmond cricket club play in the Middlesex league and Middlesex sometimes play 
at their Old Deer Park 
ground[https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/51.46911/-0.29533]. Neighbouring 
Sheen Park[https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/51.4579/-0.2708] play in both 
the Middlesex and Surrey leagues.

--
Andrew

From: Robert Skedgell 
Sent: 19 September 2018 21:24
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database



On 19/09/2018 16:04, Andrew Black wrote:
> There is a very big difference
>
> - ceremonial counties exist now and so are in scope for OSM.  As you say
> here are differences between them and admin counties when unitary
> authorties are involved
>  - traditional counties are an attempt to recreate the past
> So I don't think these trad counties have any ceremonial existence any
> more.  Which means they are just causing confusion.
>
> I live in London. The place I live in has been inb the county of London
> since 1889. But the traditional county beast says I live in Surrey.

I also live in London, east of the River Lea (historical Essex). It
certainly makes a difference for the purposes of athletics: my running
club is the other side of the Lea and affiliated to Middlesex, but I am
ineligible to compete in Middlesex County AA races. I suspect people
participating in other sports at club level are affected by historic
counties.

I do not have any strong views on whether or not they should be included
in OSM, but even now they are not entirely irrelevant.

--
Robert Skedgell (rskedgell)



___
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

[Robert Skedgell]

On 19/09/2018 16:04, Andrew Black wrote:
> There is a very big difference
> 
> - ceremonial counties exist now and so are in scope for OSM.  As you say
> here are differences between them and admin counties when unitary
> authorties are involved
>  - traditional counties are an attempt to recreate the past 
> So I don't think these trad counties have any ceremonial existence any
> more.  Which means they are just causing confusion.
> 
> I live in London. The place I live in has been inb the county of London
> since 1889. But the traditional county beast says I live in Surrey.

I also live in London, east of the River Lea (historical Essex). It
certainly makes a difference for the purposes of athletics: my running
club is the other side of the Lea and affiliated to Middlesex, but I am
ineligible to compete in Middlesex County AA races. I suspect people
participating in other sports at club level are affected by historic
counties.

I do not have any strong views on whether or not they should be included
in OSM, but even now they are not entirely irrelevant.

-- 
Robert Skedgell (rskedgell)



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

[Talk-GB] Stimulus Fund - Invitation to tender: Local government open geospatial data stimulus fund

[Rob Nickerson]

Hi again,

Today the Open Data Institute (ODI) launched an invitation to tender for a
share of a stimulus fund.

OSM UK has provided some early thinking / feedback in the development of
this and we are pleased to see OpenStreetMap so prominent within the tender
(especially given all the current buzz around the OS opening up more data).

Please share with your local authorities (i.e. the audience) and highlight
the benefit that OpenStreetMap can bring.

You will note the reference to a “Mapper in Residence” project as one of
the potential projects. This links nicely with the UK Talent Directory I
just emailed about. If this is of interest to you then please let me know
by signing up to the UK Talent Directory:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfDIsIHmQSDWae4_pUUmMy45gPYtsdcpMcTDqLTx7w6Ze3vNw/viewform

STIMULUS FUND:
Link:
https://theodi.org/article/invitation-to-tender-local-government-open-geospatial-data-stimulus-fund/

# Aim
The purpose of the fund is to grow the public sector’s understanding of how
to collect, publish and use open geospatial data, with a specific focus on
collaborative approaches.

# Audience
UK upper tier and lower tied local authorities, in partnership with local
or national OpenStreetMap communities or chapters, local open data groups,
or civil society groups.

# Example activities
The types of activities the ODI are looking to fund include:

   - Projects that might help to demonstrate the onward benefits of the
   Open MasterMap, e.g. by highlighting the types of derived data that will be
   easier to release, or through use of infrastructure such as the OS Open
   Zoomstack trial
   - Collaborative projects that enable local government GIS, planning and
   other service delivery teams to learn more about OpenStreetmap and how it
   could support local service delivery, e.g. via a “Mapper in Residence”
   project
   - Projects to import openly licensed geospatial data into OpenStreetMap
   or similar platforms, that can be easily extended into other local areas of
   the country
   - Community based mapping activities, e.g. using services like Wheelmap
   in a mapathon, to help enrich collaboratively maintained maps with
   information that might inform local policy development
   - Creation of guides and tools to enable local businesses and
   communities to more easily contribute to their local maps

# Value
Up to 4 awards, ranging from £15-25k depending on the number of awards

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

[Talk-GB] UK Talent Directory

[Rob Nickerson]

Hi all,

I managed to send this to OSM UK email newsletter recipients before heading
off on holidays and responses suggest the form is ok - so now publicising
more widely.

Note: This is for people who are UK/Isle of Man/Channel Islands based. If
we get to the scale where we have a client who has a specific need that
requires talent to be brought in from outside the UK, then we will update
the form.


To help with our aims

we are pleased to announce the launch of the UK Talent Directory. If you
are interested in undertaking an OSM related project - paid or unpaid -
please add your name and details to the directory. If we come across a
client or project that may be relevant to you, we will link you to them.

We are interested in all skillsets, from mapping, to teaching, to software
and website development, to cartography, to academic research, to admin
work, to everything else. If it relates to OpenStreetMap and we can help
link you to potential work/projects then we will.
Join the directory today!

There is of course no guarantees that any work will become available but if
we don't try we will never find out if this service is helpful. It is a
free service we are offering - no strings attached.

Help us spread the word by sharing this email with your friends and
colleagues.

The link in full:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfDIsIHmQSDWae4_pUUmMy45gPYtsdcpMcTDqLTx7w6Ze3vNw/viewform


Thanks,

*Rob*
___
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 2018-09-19 18:59, Frederik Ramm wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On 09/19/2018 06:38 PM, Martin Wynne wrote:I'm puzzled by this insistence 
> that we can map only that which is
> "current or real".
> You shouldn't, it is one of our basic principles and it's here to stay.
> Usually people don't say "current or real" but "verifiable on the
> ground". The fundamental idea goes like this: If two mappers disagree
> about a feature, they can simply go there and the conflict can be solved
> immediately.

It's time this mantra was updated. A more practical version would be
something like "independently and publicly verifiable." In other words,
verifiable by a random mapper without special privilege using only
acceptable sources. If two mappers disagree, the point can often be
decided by reference to the sources, without needing a site visit.___
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

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 09/19/2018 06:38 PM, Martin Wynne wrote:
> I'm puzzled by this insistence that we can map only that which is
> "current or real".

You shouldn't, it is one of our basic principles and it's here to stay.
Usually people don't say "current or real" but "verifiable on the
ground". The fundamental idea goes like this: If two mappers disagree
about a feature, they can simply go there and the conflict can be solved
immediately.

Allowing stuff that is not verifiable on the ground would rob us of this
possibility - all of a sudden we'd have to meet in libraries or
courthouses or universities to find out who's right.

We don't want that, generally.

But we are not fundamentalists, and we do allow exceptions. One obvious
exception is current administrative boundaries; they are not easily
verifiable on the ground but we're making an exception because of their
undoubted usefulness.

In addition these generally accepted exceptions, there's also a lot of
stuff in our database that will not withstand scrutiny and will likely
be deleted if someone looks at it with a keen "is this verifiable on the
ground" eye. The existence of such data cannot be taken as a sign that
our principles are moot.

> See for example this node:
> 
>  https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2518973091
> 
> There is absolutely nothing on the ground. And 1402 is a long time ago
> to be current.
> 
> But there is a brown sign directing visitors to it:
> 
>  https://goo.gl/maps/LSVnemQ5fxw

Yes, you would normally at least map the sign so there's less potential
for a dispute.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
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]

I'm puzzled by this insistence that we can map only that which is 
"current or real".


See for example this node:

 https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2518973091

There is absolutely nothing on the ground. And 1402 is a long time ago 
to be current.


But there is a brown sign directing visitors to it:

 https://goo.gl/maps/LSVnemQ5fxw

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 19/09/2018 16:57, Steve Doerr wrote:

On 19/09/2018 16:04, Andrew Black wrote:

I live in London. The place I live in has been inb the county of 
London since 1889. But the traditional county beast says I live in 
Surrey.


Then you will be familiar with the annual boat race between Oxford and 
Cambridge universities, at the start of which they toss a coin to decide 
who will row from the 'Surrey station' and who from the 'Middlesex 
station'. These counties still have cultural significance today.


Just because the sides are named after former counties doesn't mean 
those counties still exist. The Isle of Ely doesn't exist as a current 
administrative boundary any more either, but that doesn't stop several 
organisations based in the area it used to cover having that phrase in 
their name. Including, appropriately in this context, the Isle of Ely 
Rowing Club :-)


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

[Steve Doerr]

On 19/09/2018 16:04, Andrew Black wrote:

There is a very big difference

- ceremonial counties exist now and so are in scope for OSM.  As you 
say here are differences between them and admin counties when unitary 
authorties are involved

 - traditional counties are an attempt to recreate the past
So I don't think these trad counties have any ceremonial existence any 
more.  Which means they are just causing confusion.


I live in London. The place I live in has been inb the county of 
London since 1889. But the traditional county beast says I live in Surrey.



Then you will be familiar with the annual boat race between Oxford and 
Cambridge universities, at the start of which they toss a coin to decide 
who will row from the 'Surrey station' and who from the 'Middlesex 
station'. These counties still have cultural significance today.



--

Steve


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
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 Black]

There is a very big difference

- ceremonial counties exist now and so are in scope for OSM.  As you say
here are differences between them and admin counties when unitary
authorties are involved
 - traditional counties are an attempt to recreate the past
So I don't think these trad counties have any ceremonial existence any
more.  Which means they are just causing confusion.

I live in London. The place I live in has been inb the county of London
since 1889. But the traditional county beast says I live in Surrey.



>
>
> I'm not sure what the difference is between boundary=ceremonial and
> boundary=traditional (I believe the ceremonial counties generally include
> the districts which were in the county but now are unitary authorities so
> not in the boundary=administrative).
>
> Ed
>
>
>
___
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

[Ed Loach]

Warin wrote:

> OSM users can easily remove stuff in there pre filtering of OSM data.
> So it is not an issue for them.

I missed the start of this thread (it was last month - I was nomail) but agree 
with this. If OSM user's want boundaries from OSM then they can quite happily 
set up a filter to only get those tagged boundary=administrative or 
boundary=ceremonial (which has long been used) or boundary=vice_county or 
boundary=political or boundary=traditional or whatever. My relation boundary 
checker [1] (which I discover is still running daily) slightly separates out 
the results into different pages based on boundary=

I'm not sure what the difference is between boundary=ceremonial and 
boundary=traditional (I believe the ceremonial counties generally include the 
districts which were in the county but now are unitary authorities so not in 
the boundary=administrative).

Ed

[1] http://loach.me.uk/osm/boundaries/Default.aspx


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

[Talk-GB] MapThePaths: lagginess in Firefox 62.0 - use Chrome for now

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hi,


Apologies for this: I've noticed that MapThePaths has become very laggy in 
Firefox 62.0, while in 60 and 61 it worked fine unless there was a large amount 
of data. Unsure of the reason but I've asked on dev in case the Leaflet 
developers can give some guidance.


In the meantime, I would recommend you use Chrome, which does not appear to 
have a problem.


Thanks,

Nick


___
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

[Brian Prangle]

I've not participated in this debate because I have no strong views either
way and no specialist knowledge to contribute. However I don't think a
decision has been reached here as there are roughly equal numbers for and
against and those  "just commenting" from a thread population of 17 -
hardly representative of the UK OSM community.

I'd like to develp Colin's emphasis on process on how we can arrive at a
decision and what follows from that decision and ifany of  you see a role
for the UK Chapter in all of this

We can have a Loomio vote but I would suggest we set a minimum number of
voters for it to be seen as representing the UK community. Might I suggest
60?  I think that's roughly the number of  users editing the map daily.

If the vote is for retaining historic boundaries then we need a volunteer
(before the vote!) to document the wiki, taking on board Frederik's comments
If the vote is for not having them then I suggest a two stage process:
1. All new edits get reverted
2. A plan is drawn up for retaining all the current data by migrating it to
OHM and then deleting it from OSM.  That respects all the hard work by
Sean. Again identified before the vote takes place! (Might I suggest that
those complaining loudest consider stepping forward to do this?)

If we can't get volunteers for these processes then I suggest a vote is not
worthwhile

Regards

Brian

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 at 22:53, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 27/08/18 06:05, Martin Wynne wrote:
> >> I don't think it's for those who have mapped something in OSM to
> >> demonstrate majority support for its retention. I think it is for those
> >> seeking to have others' contributions removed to demonstrate a clear
> >> consensus in favour of deletion.
> >
> > Should this consensus be among OSM mappers or OSM users?
> >
> >
>
>
> OSM users can easily remove stuff in there pre filtering of OSM data. So
> it is not an issue for them.
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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