Re: [OSM-talk-ie] When is a townland a townland (and when is it 2+ townlands)?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, Thanks for the replies, it looks like there are many good reasons for things to be mapped this way. I won't change anything. I'll tweak the logainm import script to not throw an error in these case s. Rory On 29/05/16 11:39, Rory McCann wrote: > Hi all, > > A while ago I mentioned a possible problem with the Logainm data > import, where 2+ townlands were getting the same logainm > reference[1]. Upon closer investigation, I don't think this is a > bug with the import process, but a question of "Is a townland is > one townland or many townlands?". > > Consider Graiguealug townland in Carlow. It's in OSM as 3 > different townlands: OSM ids > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2196774 > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2274862 > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2274863 all touching each > other. Each is in a different civil parish[2]. > > However Logainm only has one entry http://www.logainm.ie/en/3531 > which is in 3 different civil parishes. Logainm allows one townland > to be in more than one CP. If you look at the GSGS map, only one > townland is shown on the map, and the total area (~400 acres) is > similar to the total off the 3 townlands in OSM. > > It looks like one townlands was split into 3 townlands so that > each townland would be in one and only one CP. > > However I don't think this is the right approach. I think the OSM > philosophy of "One Feature, One OSM Element"[3] should apply, and > that those 3 townlands should be merged into 1. The CP boundaries > should physically stay where they are, but they will not line up > with a townland boundary. I seen other examples of townlands > crossing CP boundaries and have mapped them as one townland, with a > CP border going through the middle. > > I'm tempted to merge townlands like this into one townland. What > do people think? > > Rory > > [1] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ie/2016-March/001499.ht ml > > [2] Townlands.ie: > https://www.townlands.ie/carlow/forth/templepeter/templepeter/graiguea lug/ > > https://www.townlands.ie/carlow/forth/tullowmagimma/templepeter/graiguea lug/ > https://www.townlands.ie/carlow/forth/nurney/templepeter/graiguealug/ > > [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element > > ___ Talk-ie mailing > list Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJXYlNZAAoJEOrWdmeZivv2oDsIAJPm2FBgTNtOgmFwQHJlE1YY RjAbmdjhq9ljbSiSCZfCi2bRto0uROFc5us/LV5GoCdSFd4ZtN3zR36ngB5g8oA7 8WaPtDkBAiWCf8I8y6GQqC6Sx21R+jOPXaskN5a0Xg5Od1LIHB1Dy+kXBd+aHtJr 4CHx2fKgrNhKQ9J1LAI8/Gzl2Rw9+cYAOkpsMdgo7/Hi36HY2l7OVybn58B5AoIR GvghUVzHrAXKsk/fj2swN791TYPP7SgmDmAEeIz3cIVR3OUueioX/i8LvdV+AfSv SdkjBIgU71DmMIZeB7+IQRCBjjUQTipHPx+d4Sv4anJv9jp1wroVikV4FkfRj+c= =Ulhs -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Talk-ie mailing list Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
Re: [OSM-talk-ie] When is a townland a townland (and when is it 2+ > townlands)?
Hi, I concur with Paddy. Treat each part as a separate townland and name it TownlandName (Barony) as is the traditional convention. If necessary, the part-townlands could be joined as a relation(?) as TownlandName. Note that some townlands are not contiguous with themselves and there are enclaves and exclaves. :) Colm --- Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead > Date: Sun, 29 May 2016 12:50:29 +0100 > From: Patrick Matthews > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk-ie] When is a townland a townland (and when is > it 2+ townlands)? > > Rory, Dave, > > My inclination is the opposite - there are plenty of situations where you > have townlands "split" between civil parishes in exactly the same way as > the ones you mention but where one "part" being in one ED and another in a > different ED means that the two are shown as separate on the post-1898 > maps. (There can also be false positives where two completely different > townlands in different parishes but with the same name happen to be in the > same ED, e.g. Corravilla in east Cavan, where two townlands, one in > Shercock parish and one in Knockbride, happen to be in the same ED and are > represented in the maps as a single townland, but have different postal > addresses and are listed separately in the electoral register.) > > The methodology of the original Ordnance Survey, for what it's worth, was > to treat each "part" of the townland as a separate entity, and they're > still recorded as separate entities in the 1901 and 1911 census reports. > > Baronies split by counties (e.g. Fore, Rathdown) should be treated > separately as they were/are county subdivisions. Civil parishes and > baronies were always independent of each other so the split doesn't matter > there. > > Regards, > > Paddy. > ___ Talk-ie mailing list Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
Re: [OSM-talk-ie] When is a townland a townland (and when is it 2+ townlands)?
Hi all I understand that each (part) Townland is in fact a separate townland/administrative area. I mapped Graiguealug first as one composite and on advice from a map librarian i was strongly encouraged to show it as three distinct townlands. The history shows I followed this advise in two stages. I had on loan to me at the time a paper 1901 census index which bore this out. The two townlands of Tara Hill in wexford were distinct in the 1901 index but are one in GSGS. I visited the valuation office and found the boundary commissioner had altered "them to it" in 1906. I found a man who owned two plots of land and subseqeuntly owned one of the total acerage in the valuation books. I favour keeping them separate . On 29 May 2016 at 10:39, Rory McCann wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi all, > > A while ago I mentioned a possible problem with the Logainm data > import, where 2+ townlands were getting the same logainm reference[1]. > Upon closer investigation, I don't think this is a bug with the import > process, but a question of "Is a townland is one townland or many > townlands?". > > Consider Graiguealug townland in Carlow. It's in OSM as 3 different > townlands: OSM ids https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2196774 > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2274862 > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2274863 all touching each > other. Each is in a different civil parish[2]. > > However Logainm only has one entry http://www.logainm.ie/en/3531 which > is in 3 different civil parishes. Logainm allows one townland to be in > more than one CP. If you look at the GSGS map, only one townland is > shown on the map, and the total area (~400 acres) is similar to the > total off the 3 townlands in OSM. > > It looks like one townlands was split into 3 townlands so that each > townland would be in one and only one CP. > > However I don't think this is the right approach. I think the OSM > philosophy of "One Feature, One OSM Element"[3] should apply, and that > those 3 townlands should be merged into 1. The CP boundaries should > physically stay where they are, but they will not line up with a > townland boundary. I seen other examples of townlands crossing CP > boundaries and have mapped them as one townland, with a CP border > going through the middle. > > I'm tempted to merge townlands like this into one townland. What do > people think? > > Rory > > [1] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ie/2016-March/001499.html > [2] Townlands.ie: > https://www.townlands.ie/carlow/forth/templepeter/templepeter/graiguealug/ > > https://www.townlands.ie/carlow/forth/tullowmagimma/templepeter/graiguealug/ > https://www.townlands.ie/carlow/forth/nurney/templepeter/graiguealug/ > [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJXSri4AAoJEOrWdmeZivv2Lc8H/AoZcBrdbT3u5y2vvKBnKh8J > BKP48p0sVAyMyDAWl3nQ88kqwuHcNcYYBt+aWwfDAeOyBs63OJQ1dlcw1+9EW3iL > wxkauYKAvVNEd1m7sHBFWwIdxhmRUfinwrHyNhoIFL84/bExPAs4KCe1epFYwqNd > hSFP5lnRuaikct5eEkP9uTr0tGDRkYLzwGOwcj30xZSz89dB786bc/YR834kgigi > kYtjL6O+uEZ05Xb1M2kSyzR+LdmEW3tFYEu1RHjxlMKIgOedUAF0+RdEF0qOOmPe > optVIDIyxFuTk0BTsqITb05uyPHss58zamz0ldnZBh0AqAg8JTQjxl9/IDxhFqw= > =z0F7 > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > ___ > Talk-ie mailing list > Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie > ___ Talk-ie mailing list Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
Re: [OSM-talk-ie] When is a townland a townland (and when is it 2+ townlands)?
Corravila is represented as two separate entities in Logainm ( http://www.logainm.ie/en/3801 and http://www.logainm.ie/en/130953). On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Patrick Matthews wrote: > Corravilla: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5705909 > > On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Patrick Matthews < > mullinalag...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Rory, Dave, >> >> My inclination is the opposite - there are plenty of situations where you >> have townlands "split" between civil parishes in exactly the same way as >> the ones you mention but where one "part" being in one ED and another in a >> different ED means that the two are shown as separate on the post-1898 >> maps. (There can also be false positives where two completely different >> townlands in different parishes but with the same name happen to be in the >> same ED, e.g. Corravilla in east Cavan, where two townlands, one in >> Shercock parish and one in Knockbride, happen to be in the same ED and are >> represented in the maps as a single townland, but have different postal >> addresses and are listed separately in the electoral register.) >> >> The methodology of the original Ordnance Survey, for what it's worth, was >> to treat each "part" of the townland as a separate entity, and they're >> still recorded as separate entities in the 1901 and 1911 census reports. >> >> Baronies split by counties (e.g. Fore, Rathdown) should be treated >> separately as they were/are county subdivisions. Civil parishes and >> baronies were always independent of each other so the split doesn't matter >> there. >> >> Regards, >> >> Paddy. >> >> >> On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Dave Corley >> wrote: >> >>> I have a vague recollection of this being discussed way back. The issue >>> is >>> not just with townlands if I recall correctly. >>> >>> I think there may also be cp's split by baronies and baronies split by >>> counties and so on. >>> >>> Your logic seems sound to me, but then again I never got to doing cp's. >>> >>> Dave >>> On 29 May 2016 10:40, "Rory McCann" wrote: >>> >>> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >>> > Hash: SHA1 >>> > >>> > Hi all, >>> > >>> > A while ago I mentioned a possible problem with the Logainm data >>> > import, where 2+ townlands were getting the same logainm reference[1]. >>> > Upon closer investigation, I don't think this is a bug with the import >>> > process, but a question of "Is a townland is one townland or many >>> > townlands?". >>> > >>> > Consider Graiguealug townland in Carlow. It's in OSM as 3 different >>> > townlands: OSM ids https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2196774 >>> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2274862 >>> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2274863 all touching each >>> > other. Each is in a different civil parish[2]. >>> > >>> > However Logainm only has one entry http://www.logainm.ie/en/3531 which >>> > is in 3 different civil parishes. Logainm allows one townland to be in >>> > more than one CP. If you look at the GSGS map, only one townland is >>> > shown on the map, and the total area (~400 acres) is similar to the >>> > total off the 3 townlands in OSM. >>> > >>> > It looks like one townlands was split into 3 townlands so that each >>> > townland would be in one and only one CP. >>> > >>> > However I don't think this is the right approach. I think the OSM >>> > philosophy of "One Feature, One OSM Element"[3] should apply, and that >>> > those 3 townlands should be merged into 1. The CP boundaries should >>> > physically stay where they are, but they will not line up with a >>> > townland boundary. I seen other examples of townlands crossing CP >>> > boundaries and have mapped them as one townland, with a CP border >>> > going through the middle. >>> > >>> > I'm tempted to merge townlands like this into one townland. What do >>> > people think? >>> > >>> > Rory >>> > >>> > [1] >>> > >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ie/2016-March/001499.html >>> > [2] Townlands.ie: >>> > >>> https://www.townlands.ie/carlow/forth/templepeter/templepeter/graiguealug/ >>> > >>> > >>> https://www.townlands.ie/carlow/forth/tullowmagimma/templepeter/graiguealug/ >>> > https://www.townlands.ie/carlow/forth/nurney/templepeter/graiguealug/ >>> > [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element >>> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- >>> > Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) >>> > >>> > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJXSri4AAoJEOrWdmeZivv2Lc8H/AoZcBrdbT3u5y2vvKBnKh8J >>> > BKP48p0sVAyMyDAWl3nQ88kqwuHcNcYYBt+aWwfDAeOyBs63OJQ1dlcw1+9EW3iL >>> > wxkauYKAvVNEd1m7sHBFWwIdxhmRUfinwrHyNhoIFL84/bExPAs4KCe1epFYwqNd >>> > hSFP5lnRuaikct5eEkP9uTr0tGDRkYLzwGOwcj30xZSz89dB786bc/YR834kgigi >>> > kYtjL6O+uEZ05Xb1M2kSyzR+LdmEW3tFYEu1RHjxlMKIgOedUAF0+RdEF0qOOmPe >>> > optVIDIyxFuTk0BTsqITb05uyPHss58zamz0ldnZBh0AqAg8JTQjxl9/IDxhFqw= >>> > =z0F7 >>> > -END PGP SIGNATURE- >>> > >>> > ___ >>> > Talk-ie mailing list >>> > Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org >>> > https://lists.ope
Re: [OSM-talk-ie] When is a townland a townland (and when is it 2+ townlands)?
Corravilla: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5705909 On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Patrick Matthews wrote: > Rory, Dave, > > My inclination is the opposite - there are plenty of situations where you > have townlands "split" between civil parishes in exactly the same way as > the ones you mention but where one "part" being in one ED and another in a > different ED means that the two are shown as separate on the post-1898 > maps. (There can also be false positives where two completely different > townlands in different parishes but with the same name happen to be in the > same ED, e.g. Corravilla in east Cavan, where two townlands, one in > Shercock parish and one in Knockbride, happen to be in the same ED and are > represented in the maps as a single townland, but have different postal > addresses and are listed separately in the electoral register.) > > The methodology of the original Ordnance Survey, for what it's worth, was > to treat each "part" of the townland as a separate entity, and they're > still recorded as separate entities in the 1901 and 1911 census reports. > > Baronies split by counties (e.g. Fore, Rathdown) should be treated > separately as they were/are county subdivisions. Civil parishes and > baronies were always independent of each other so the split doesn't matter > there. > > Regards, > > Paddy. > > > On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Dave Corley > wrote: > >> I have a vague recollection of this being discussed way back. The issue is >> not just with townlands if I recall correctly. >> >> I think there may also be cp's split by baronies and baronies split by >> counties and so on. >> >> Your logic seems sound to me, but then again I never got to doing cp's. >> >> Dave >> On 29 May 2016 10:40, "Rory McCann" wrote: >> >> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> > Hash: SHA1 >> > >> > Hi all, >> > >> > A while ago I mentioned a possible problem with the Logainm data >> > import, where 2+ townlands were getting the same logainm reference[1]. >> > Upon closer investigation, I don't think this is a bug with the import >> > process, but a question of "Is a townland is one townland or many >> > townlands?". >> > >> > Consider Graiguealug townland in Carlow. It's in OSM as 3 different >> > townlands: OSM ids https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2196774 >> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2274862 >> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2274863 all touching each >> > other. Each is in a different civil parish[2]. >> > >> > However Logainm only has one entry http://www.logainm.ie/en/3531 which >> > is in 3 different civil parishes. Logainm allows one townland to be in >> > more than one CP. If you look at the GSGS map, only one townland is >> > shown on the map, and the total area (~400 acres) is similar to the >> > total off the 3 townlands in OSM. >> > >> > It looks like one townlands was split into 3 townlands so that each >> > townland would be in one and only one CP. >> > >> > However I don't think this is the right approach. I think the OSM >> > philosophy of "One Feature, One OSM Element"[3] should apply, and that >> > those 3 townlands should be merged into 1. The CP boundaries should >> > physically stay where they are, but they will not line up with a >> > townland boundary. I seen other examples of townlands crossing CP >> > boundaries and have mapped them as one townland, with a CP border >> > going through the middle. >> > >> > I'm tempted to merge townlands like this into one townland. What do >> > people think? >> > >> > Rory >> > >> > [1] >> > >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ie/2016-March/001499.html >> > [2] Townlands.ie: >> > >> https://www.townlands.ie/carlow/forth/templepeter/templepeter/graiguealug/ >> > >> > >> https://www.townlands.ie/carlow/forth/tullowmagimma/templepeter/graiguealug/ >> > https://www.townlands.ie/carlow/forth/nurney/templepeter/graiguealug/ >> > [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element >> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- >> > Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) >> > >> > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJXSri4AAoJEOrWdmeZivv2Lc8H/AoZcBrdbT3u5y2vvKBnKh8J >> > BKP48p0sVAyMyDAWl3nQ88kqwuHcNcYYBt+aWwfDAeOyBs63OJQ1dlcw1+9EW3iL >> > wxkauYKAvVNEd1m7sHBFWwIdxhmRUfinwrHyNhoIFL84/bExPAs4KCe1epFYwqNd >> > hSFP5lnRuaikct5eEkP9uTr0tGDRkYLzwGOwcj30xZSz89dB786bc/YR834kgigi >> > kYtjL6O+uEZ05Xb1M2kSyzR+LdmEW3tFYEu1RHjxlMKIgOedUAF0+RdEF0qOOmPe >> > optVIDIyxFuTk0BTsqITb05uyPHss58zamz0ldnZBh0AqAg8JTQjxl9/IDxhFqw= >> > =z0F7 >> > -END PGP SIGNATURE- >> > >> > ___ >> > Talk-ie mailing list >> > Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie >> > >> ___ >> Talk-ie mailing list >> Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie >> > > ___ Talk-ie mailing list Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/
Re: [OSM-talk-ie] When is a townland a townland (and when is it 2+ townlands)?
Rory, Dave, My inclination is the opposite - there are plenty of situations where you have townlands "split" between civil parishes in exactly the same way as the ones you mention but where one "part" being in one ED and another in a different ED means that the two are shown as separate on the post-1898 maps. (There can also be false positives where two completely different townlands in different parishes but with the same name happen to be in the same ED, e.g. Corravilla in east Cavan, where two townlands, one in Shercock parish and one in Knockbride, happen to be in the same ED and are represented in the maps as a single townland, but have different postal addresses and are listed separately in the electoral register.) The methodology of the original Ordnance Survey, for what it's worth, was to treat each "part" of the townland as a separate entity, and they're still recorded as separate entities in the 1901 and 1911 census reports. Baronies split by counties (e.g. Fore, Rathdown) should be treated separately as they were/are county subdivisions. Civil parishes and baronies were always independent of each other so the split doesn't matter there. Regards, Paddy. On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Dave Corley wrote: > I have a vague recollection of this being discussed way back. The issue is > not just with townlands if I recall correctly. > > I think there may also be cp's split by baronies and baronies split by > counties and so on. > > Your logic seems sound to me, but then again I never got to doing cp's. > > Dave > On 29 May 2016 10:40, "Rory McCann" wrote: > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Hi all, > > > > A while ago I mentioned a possible problem with the Logainm data > > import, where 2+ townlands were getting the same logainm reference[1]. > > Upon closer investigation, I don't think this is a bug with the import > > process, but a question of "Is a townland is one townland or many > > townlands?". > > > > Consider Graiguealug townland in Carlow. It's in OSM as 3 different > > townlands: OSM ids https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2196774 > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2274862 > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2274863 all touching each > > other. Each is in a different civil parish[2]. > > > > However Logainm only has one entry http://www.logainm.ie/en/3531 which > > is in 3 different civil parishes. Logainm allows one townland to be in > > more than one CP. If you look at the GSGS map, only one townland is > > shown on the map, and the total area (~400 acres) is similar to the > > total off the 3 townlands in OSM. > > > > It looks like one townlands was split into 3 townlands so that each > > townland would be in one and only one CP. > > > > However I don't think this is the right approach. I think the OSM > > philosophy of "One Feature, One OSM Element"[3] should apply, and that > > those 3 townlands should be merged into 1. The CP boundaries should > > physically stay where they are, but they will not line up with a > > townland boundary. I seen other examples of townlands crossing CP > > boundaries and have mapped them as one townland, with a CP border > > going through the middle. > > > > I'm tempted to merge townlands like this into one townland. What do > > people think? > > > > Rory > > > > [1] > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ie/2016-March/001499.html > > [2] Townlands.ie: > > > https://www.townlands.ie/carlow/forth/templepeter/templepeter/graiguealug/ > > > > > https://www.townlands.ie/carlow/forth/tullowmagimma/templepeter/graiguealug/ > > https://www.townlands.ie/carlow/forth/nurney/templepeter/graiguealug/ > > [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > > Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) > > > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJXSri4AAoJEOrWdmeZivv2Lc8H/AoZcBrdbT3u5y2vvKBnKh8J > > BKP48p0sVAyMyDAWl3nQ88kqwuHcNcYYBt+aWwfDAeOyBs63OJQ1dlcw1+9EW3iL > > wxkauYKAvVNEd1m7sHBFWwIdxhmRUfinwrHyNhoIFL84/bExPAs4KCe1epFYwqNd > > hSFP5lnRuaikct5eEkP9uTr0tGDRkYLzwGOwcj30xZSz89dB786bc/YR834kgigi > > kYtjL6O+uEZ05Xb1M2kSyzR+LdmEW3tFYEu1RHjxlMKIgOedUAF0+RdEF0qOOmPe > > optVIDIyxFuTk0BTsqITb05uyPHss58zamz0ldnZBh0AqAg8JTQjxl9/IDxhFqw= > > =z0F7 > > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > > > ___ > > Talk-ie mailing list > > Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie > > > ___ > Talk-ie mailing list > Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie > ___ Talk-ie mailing list Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
Re: [OSM-talk-ie] When is a townland a townland (and when is it 2+ townlands)?
I have a vague recollection of this being discussed way back. The issue is not just with townlands if I recall correctly. I think there may also be cp's split by baronies and baronies split by counties and so on. Your logic seems sound to me, but then again I never got to doing cp's. Dave On 29 May 2016 10:40, "Rory McCann" wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi all, > > A while ago I mentioned a possible problem with the Logainm data > import, where 2+ townlands were getting the same logainm reference[1]. > Upon closer investigation, I don't think this is a bug with the import > process, but a question of "Is a townland is one townland or many > townlands?". > > Consider Graiguealug townland in Carlow. It's in OSM as 3 different > townlands: OSM ids https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2196774 > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2274862 > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2274863 all touching each > other. Each is in a different civil parish[2]. > > However Logainm only has one entry http://www.logainm.ie/en/3531 which > is in 3 different civil parishes. Logainm allows one townland to be in > more than one CP. If you look at the GSGS map, only one townland is > shown on the map, and the total area (~400 acres) is similar to the > total off the 3 townlands in OSM. > > It looks like one townlands was split into 3 townlands so that each > townland would be in one and only one CP. > > However I don't think this is the right approach. I think the OSM > philosophy of "One Feature, One OSM Element"[3] should apply, and that > those 3 townlands should be merged into 1. The CP boundaries should > physically stay where they are, but they will not line up with a > townland boundary. I seen other examples of townlands crossing CP > boundaries and have mapped them as one townland, with a CP border > going through the middle. > > I'm tempted to merge townlands like this into one townland. What do > people think? > > Rory > > [1] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ie/2016-March/001499.html > [2] Townlands.ie: > https://www.townlands.ie/carlow/forth/templepeter/templepeter/graiguealug/ > > https://www.townlands.ie/carlow/forth/tullowmagimma/templepeter/graiguealug/ > https://www.townlands.ie/carlow/forth/nurney/templepeter/graiguealug/ > [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJXSri4AAoJEOrWdmeZivv2Lc8H/AoZcBrdbT3u5y2vvKBnKh8J > BKP48p0sVAyMyDAWl3nQ88kqwuHcNcYYBt+aWwfDAeOyBs63OJQ1dlcw1+9EW3iL > wxkauYKAvVNEd1m7sHBFWwIdxhmRUfinwrHyNhoIFL84/bExPAs4KCe1epFYwqNd > hSFP5lnRuaikct5eEkP9uTr0tGDRkYLzwGOwcj30xZSz89dB786bc/YR834kgigi > kYtjL6O+uEZ05Xb1M2kSyzR+LdmEW3tFYEu1RHjxlMKIgOedUAF0+RdEF0qOOmPe > optVIDIyxFuTk0BTsqITb05uyPHss58zamz0ldnZBh0AqAg8JTQjxl9/IDxhFqw= > =z0F7 > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > ___ > Talk-ie mailing list > Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie > ___ Talk-ie mailing list Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
[OSM-talk-ie] When is a townland a townland (and when is it 2+ townlands)?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, A while ago I mentioned a possible problem with the Logainm data import, where 2+ townlands were getting the same logainm reference[1]. Upon closer investigation, I don't think this is a bug with the import process, but a question of "Is a townland is one townland or many townlands?". Consider Graiguealug townland in Carlow. It's in OSM as 3 different townlands: OSM ids https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2196774 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2274862 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2274863 all touching each other. Each is in a different civil parish[2]. However Logainm only has one entry http://www.logainm.ie/en/3531 which is in 3 different civil parishes. Logainm allows one townland to be in more than one CP. If you look at the GSGS map, only one townland is shown on the map, and the total area (~400 acres) is similar to the total off the 3 townlands in OSM. It looks like one townlands was split into 3 townlands so that each townland would be in one and only one CP. However I don't think this is the right approach. I think the OSM philosophy of "One Feature, One OSM Element"[3] should apply, and that those 3 townlands should be merged into 1. The CP boundaries should physically stay where they are, but they will not line up with a townland boundary. I seen other examples of townlands crossing CP boundaries and have mapped them as one townland, with a CP border going through the middle. I'm tempted to merge townlands like this into one townland. What do people think? Rory [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ie/2016-March/001499.html [2] Townlands.ie: https://www.townlands.ie/carlow/forth/templepeter/templepeter/graiguealug/ https://www.townlands.ie/carlow/forth/tullowmagimma/templepeter/graiguealug/ https://www.townlands.ie/carlow/forth/nurney/templepeter/graiguealug/ [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJXSri4AAoJEOrWdmeZivv2Lc8H/AoZcBrdbT3u5y2vvKBnKh8J BKP48p0sVAyMyDAWl3nQ88kqwuHcNcYYBt+aWwfDAeOyBs63OJQ1dlcw1+9EW3iL wxkauYKAvVNEd1m7sHBFWwIdxhmRUfinwrHyNhoIFL84/bExPAs4KCe1epFYwqNd hSFP5lnRuaikct5eEkP9uTr0tGDRkYLzwGOwcj30xZSz89dB786bc/YR834kgigi kYtjL6O+uEZ05Xb1M2kSyzR+LdmEW3tFYEu1RHjxlMKIgOedUAF0+RdEF0qOOmPe optVIDIyxFuTk0BTsqITb05uyPHss58zamz0ldnZBh0AqAg8JTQjxl9/IDxhFqw= =z0F7 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Talk-ie mailing list Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
