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

On 22/09/2018 14:46, Martin Wynne wrote: Great. Let them consider themselves so. It has little to do with OSM & nothing to do with this specific subject. OSM mappers spend many hours of their free time adding stuff to OSM because it interests them and in the hope that others may find it

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

Great. Let them consider themselves so. It has little to do with OSM & nothing to do with this specific subject. OSM mappers spend many hours of their free time adding stuff to OSM because it interests them and in the hope that others may find it useful. Simply because they enjoy doing it as

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

On 20/09/2018 18:37, Adam Snape wrote: Hi, If these boundaries were purely of historical interest I doubt that you'd find many experienced contributors arguing for their inclusion in OSM. The argument is that these areas retain a continued cultural geographic relevance. No, they don't.

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

On 20/09/2018 19:44, Mark Goodge wrote: Then get involved and put it in OHM. I was involved, but the current OHM development is not going in a way that works well with OSM so I gave up. I'd rather mirror OSM directly and add my historic material to that local copy! Which is what I'm doing

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

On 20/09/2018 18:16, Lester Caine wrote: On 20/09/2018 17:50, Mark Goodge wrote: In fact, putting them in OSM isn't just damaging to OSM, it's damaging to OHM. At the moment, OHM is a bit sparse, there are some well-mapped areas but there are some pretty big blank areas. What it really needs

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

Stuart Reynolds wrote: > I propose that we refer this to the OSM UK Directors and ask > them to review the arguments for both sides and come to a > firm decision. That’s what we elected them for, after all. Then > they publish it, and that is what we all agree to accept, > whether it matches

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

Hi, If these boundaries were purely of historical interest I doubt that you'd find many experienced contributors arguing for their inclusion in OSM. The argument is that these areas retain a continued cultural geographic relevance. People with no particularinterest in history can and do still

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

On 20/09/2018 17:50, Mark Goodge wrote: In fact, putting them in OSM isn't just damaging to OSM, it's damaging to OHM. At the moment, OHM is a bit sparse, there are some well-mapped areas but there are some pretty big blank areas. What it really needs is a group of enthusiastic contributors,

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

On 20/09/2018 16:37, Dan S wrote: Op do 20 sep. 2018 om 16:31 schreef Mark Goodge : However, historic administrative boundaries, by definition, are not current. They're not an edge case. They are completely outside the realms of what is current. Your "by definition" seems to be about

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

Op do 20 sep. 2018 om 16:31 schreef Mark Goodge : > > > > On 20/09/2018 13:46, Martin Wynne wrote: > > On 20/09/2018 13:12, Dave F wrote: > >> See the OSM Welcome page. > > > > Thanks. The wording there is: > > > > "OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both real and > > current." >

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

On 20/09/2018 13:46, Martin Wynne wrote: On 20/09/2018 13:12, Dave F wrote: See the OSM Welcome page. Thanks. The wording there is: "OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both real and current." Unfortunately it doesn't define "real" or "current". No, it leaves those to

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

Stuart wrote: > I propose that we refer this to the OSM UK Directors and ask them > to review the arguments for both sides and come to a firm decision. > That’s what we elected them for, after all. I didn't. I thought OSM UK was to promote OSM in the UK, not decide what we can and can't map.

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

I’m all for debate and coming to a consensus, but my message counter has got to 108 mails in this thread, and I have to say that from where I am sitting it’s all becoming rather tedious. The same arguments (albeit polite) are being rehashed, nothing new is being said, and no-one is showing any

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

On 19/09/2018 23:01, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Frederik Ramm wrote: It still is one today. So there's no problem, then. 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

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

On 20/09/2018 13:24, Colin Smale wrote: On 2018-09-20 14:12, Dave F wrote: See the OSM Welcome page. Quoting the law does not make a person guilty. Misunderstanding 'the law' doesn't prove 'innocence'. If it were that simple these boundaries would have been removed long ago. Being

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

On 20/09/2018 13:12, Dave F wrote: See the OSM Welcome page. Thanks. The wording there is: "OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both real and current." Unfortunately it doesn't define "real" or "current". What is a "real" bus stop? Does it need a physical marker post or

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

On 2018-09-20 14:12, Dave F wrote: > See the OSM Welcome page. Quoting the law does not make a person guilty. If it were that simple these boundaries would have been removed long ago. Are you offering to delete these boundaries then? As far as I can see there is no "decision" in this case

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

See the OSM Welcome page. On 20/09/2018 13:00, Martin Wynne wrote: The argument against the historic county boundaries is that they can't be verified on the ground. No, Martyn. It's that they are not current. Make up your minds! Previously: > > On 09/19/2018 06:38 PM, Martin Wynne wrote:

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

Sure (green tick): https://www.openstreetmap.org/welcome On 20/09/2018 12:52, Colin Smale wrote: On 2018-09-20 13:22, Dave F wrote: As I noted previously, many discussions have been had & a decision made. The discussion is clearly ongoing Could you point me to the "decision" please?

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

On 20/09/18 20:53, Martin Wynne wrote: How can you verify it's the same stream? I can't.  I've deleted it. This raises the question of the maximum length of a culvert under a road, beyond which it is no longer permissible to map it as such. Under a country lane is ok? But under a motorway?

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

I think Richard as usually eloquently summarised my position. Rutland is perhaps an extreme example insofar as more-or-less the entire population objected to the county disappearing. However such cases are not uncommon across the world: of the top of my head, I can think of the city of Allegheny

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

The argument against the historic county boundaries is that they can't be verified on the ground. No, Martyn. It's that they are not current. Make up your minds! Previously: > > On 09/19/2018 06:38 PM, Martin Wynne wrote: > > I'm puzzled by this insistence that we can map only that which >

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

On 2018-09-20 13:22, Dave F wrote: > As I noted previously, many discussions have been had & a decision made. The discussion is clearly ongoing Could you point me to the "decision" please?___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org

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

On 20/09/2018 12:07, Martin Wynne wrote: The argument against the historic county boundaries is that they can't be verified on the ground. No, Martyn. It's that they are not current. Current boundaries aren't visible on the ground either. No one's painted dashed lines across the fields,

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

Poohsticks. (How did the conversation get to this...) The argument against the historic county boundaries is that they can't be verified on the ground. I map lots of stuff that can't be verified on the ground. For example rural bus stops often have no physical marker. Martin.

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

On 20/09/2018 11:57, Dan S wrote: Poohsticks. (How did the conversation get to this...) OSM threads *always* go off track, often from the first reply. Could we all please /try/ to keep on topic, or start a new thread? Cheers DaveF ___ Talk-GB

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

Do we map pipelines? Or just the visible markers? What is the correct tagging for this: Sorry, forget that. I found: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:pipeline%3Dmarker Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org

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

Op do 20 sep. 2018 om 09:46 schreef Colin Smale : > > On 2018-09-20 10:25, Martin Wynne wrote: > > But I can't verify that fact. Should I not map it at all? What is verifiable > on the ground is the fact that the stream does not stop dead at one location > and restart at another. > > How can you

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

How can you verify it's the same stream? I can't. I've deleted it. This raises the question of the maximum length of a culvert under a road, beyond which it is no longer permissible to map it as such. Under a country lane is ok? But under a motorway? What is a stream? Even if it's the

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

On 2018-09-20 10:25, Martin Wynne wrote: > But I can't verify that fact. Should I not map it at all? What is verifiable > on the ground is the fact that the stream does not stop dead at one location > and restart at another. How can you verify it's the same stream? Taking your own flourescein

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

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. "Verifiable on

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

On 20/09/2018 07:24, Frederik Ramm wrote: 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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

. -- 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 > > - c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, I think this needs discussing on its own merits, because the argument being made here is different to the usual argument for adding historical features. The OP and others have made clear that the motivation lies not in recording now-disappeared historical features, but in mapping traditional

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

On 2018-09-18 15:47, Dave F wrote: > As Frederick & others point out - It will open the floodgates for other > irrelevant data to be added. Relevance is not at issue here - that is far too subjective. The point is that the "OSM Community" is making a decision that this data is not within the

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

Hi all. There's appears to be a misguided belief this hasn't been discussed previously. It has, numerous times, and the consensus of those who took part was so clear it's now included in the first page every new users sees. I feel there is nothing to discuss/vote on as it all been said &

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

His, I think I said earlier in the thread but I've never viewed OSM as a strict majority rule, more a do-ocracy or rule by consensus. Certainly, I think anybody proposing the deletion of others' mapping ought to be sure of clear community consensus, not just a mere majority opinion. Future

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

Hi, On 18.09.2018 10:04, Dan S wrote: > Though I've no particular expertise to add, this thread has tipped me > in favour of being happy with these boundaries. Colin very rightly > emphasised process - how do we come to some decision rather than > simply expressing our views and then sitting back

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

Though I've no particular expertise to add, this thread has tipped me in favour of being happy with these boundaries. Colin very rightly emphasised process - how do we come to some decision rather than simply expressing our views and then sitting back waiting for it to erupt again in 18 months?

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

On 2018-08-27 01:27, Neil Matthews wrote: > *If* there are used for looking up addresses, then there is some very slight > advantage to having them -- I still occasionally see websites/people > referring to Avon :-) Postal counties are a whole new family-sized can of worms Everybody knows

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

*If* there are used for looking up addresses, then there is some very slight advantage to having them -- I still occasionally see websites/people referring to Avon :-) Neil On 26/08/2018 23:49, Dave F wrote: > Hi > > To repeat, They do exist, but only as a record of old data, not > current.

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

Hi To repeat, They do exist, but only as a record of old data, not current. just as there's a record of Humberside & Avon. That they don't get altered is irrelevant. I disagree about their legality. DaveF On 26/08/2018 23:01, Adam Snape wrote: Hi, Both Colin and Dave have repeated the

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

Hi, Both Colin and Dave have repeated the implication that the traditional counties don't exist. It's very much arguable I guess, certainly successive governments have made clear that they recognised the continued existence of the traditional counties, and that administrative changes neither

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

On 2018-08-26 22:47, Adam Snape wrote: > I feel I should stress at this point that we do map a fairly similar set of > boundaries, the so-called 'ceremonial counties'. These are basically a modern > attempt at providing a set of geographic county areas which don't strictly > follow county

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

On 26/08/2018 21:47, Adam Snape wrote: On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 21:20 Mark Goodge, > wrote: I think it's slightly unfortunate that OSM uses the tag 'historic' for something that's different to what we are discussing here. As well as being

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

On 2018-08-26 22:05, 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. > >

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

On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 21:20 Mark Goodge, wrote: > > I think it's slightly unfortunate that OSM uses the tag 'historic' for > something that's different to what we are discussing here. As well as > being potentially ambiguous, it may also encourage people to add > boundaries that are "historic" in

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

On 26/08/2018 16:37, Andrew Black wrote: Before we can decide whether to delete or document it we need to decide whether it is wanted. Might a Loomio vote be a way forwards. As a relatively recent newcomer to OSM as a contributor, I was wondering about that. Does OSM have the equivalent of

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

On 26/08/2018 20:54, Colin Smale wrote: There is a wiki page for boundary=historic, which I think makes it clear that these boundaries should not be in OSM. I think it's slightly unfortunate that OSM uses the tag 'historic' for something that's different to what we are discussing here. As

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

Disagree. We all add data which abides by certain rules & criteria. We vet it ourselves as we're adding it. If a contributor fails to do that, they should be expected to justify the reasons. This hasn't occurred. That they still exist as historical documents is not a viable argument. As Dave

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

On 26/08/2018 21:05, 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

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

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?

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

On 2018-08-26 20:45, Adam Snape wrote: > Hi, > > 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 >

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

Hi, 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. Kind regards, Adam On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 16:38

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

Before we can decide whether to delete or document it we need to decide whether it is wanted. Might a Loomio vote be a way forwards. On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 at 15:42, Colin Smale wrote: > I wanted to talk about the process, not the outcome. It is obvious there > is not an overwhelming consensus

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

I wanted to talk about the process, not the outcome. It is obvious there is not an overwhelming consensus one way or the other, and as usual the debate just fizzles out with no conclusion. If we do nothing, the data stays in the database because nobody has the balls to delete it, but it can't

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

I agree with Dave F " It's still historic data, irrelevant to OSM. They are neither "current or real". That they will "never change" is irrelevant. They add no quality to the database.They should be removed." On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 at 12:58, Colin Smale wrote: > I agree, but where do we

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

On Sun, 2018-08-26 at 12:59 +0100, Martin Wynne wrote: > > They add no quality to the database. > > They do for someone wanting to know where the historic boundaries > lie. In that case they would be more appropriate in OHM. Phil (trigpoint) ___

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

I think there's certainly an argument for including the traditional boundaries. There's certainly enough people arguing the pros for us to say that there's no clear consensus against it. As you say, there is a certain culture of tolerance within OSM that would be at odds with removal. I do,

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

They add no quality to the database. They do for someone wanting to know where the historic boundaries lie. For example in cross-referencing the old OS County Series maps, see for example: https://maps.nls.uk/view/121856992#zoom=3=8515=14122=BT Martin.

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

I agree, but where do we actually go from here? We have some options... 1) remove them all 2) leave them in the database and quietly ignore them 3) leave them in the database and document them, even though they are controversial, to say the least Option 2 is least desirable IMHO, as we

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

No, it's hasn't been acquiesced. It's still historic data, irrelevant to OSM. They are neither "current or real". That they will "never change" is irrelevant. They add no quality to the database.They should be removed. DaveF On 26/08/2018 11:46, Colin Smale wrote: It has gone all quiet

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

It has gone all quiet here, and in the mean time smb001 has been making steady progress across England. I take it that means acquiescence to these historic county boundaries being in OSM. I guess we should get smb001 to write up the tagging in the wiki. Or is there a discussion going on

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

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

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

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..

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 08/08/18 17:03, Nick Whitelegg wrote: I think these things are at least partly a product of what generation you belong to. I think one can include 'Middlesex' in that package? Just when will it cease to exist ;) -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact -

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

On 08/08/2018 17:05, Stephen Doerr wrote: On 8 August 2018, at 15:50, Sean Blanchflower wrote: >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. I for one am glad to

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

in! Nick From: Colin Spiller Sent: 08 August 2018 16:29:15 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database Here in Yorkshire, people are very possessive (if that's the right word!) about the old county boundary (i.e. pre 1974). Many peopl

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

On 8 August 2018, at 15:50, Sean Blanchflower wrote: >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. I for one am glad to have the boundaries of the 'real' counties in

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

Here in Yorkshire, people are very possessive (if that's the right word!) about the old county boundary (i.e. pre 1974). Many people are very aware of the problem (as they see it) that certain parts of Yorkshire have been transferred to (or 'stolen by') Lancashire, or other counties. They

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

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

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

On 08/08/18 13:54, Colin Smale wrote: There are plenty of examples of "former" objects in OSM - closed pubs, railway alignments etc. They are only still there because they are perceived to have some kind of relevance in the present day. Can a case be made that these historic counties are still

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

On 08/08/2018 13:54, Colin Smale wrote: On 2018-08-08 14:17, Dave F wrote: Hi On 08/08/2018 12:14, Colin Smale wrote: If this (probably completely static) dataset is used as a baseline, at least these relations would have a verifiable source.

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

On 08/08/18 12:59, Dave F wrote: How often do you believe people will actually want historic data? Organizations archive for a reason. Consider your house, how things you don't use will get shoved to the back of the cupboard/shed. I live in a Roman city, the editors struggle to display current

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

On 2018-08-08 14:17, Dave F wrote: >> Hi >> >> On 08/08/2018 12:14, Colin Smale wrote: > >> If this (probably completely static) dataset is used as a baseline, at least >> these relations would have a verifiable source. >> >>

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

Hi On 08/08/2018 12:14, Colin Smale wrote: The OS publish boundaries for historic counties, so one could say these boundaries are the current boundaries for the historic counties. To me that's an oxymoron. If this (probably completely static) dataset is used as a baseline, at least

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

On 08/08/2018 12:05, Lester Caine wrote: On 08/08/18 10:56, Dave F wrote: On 08/08/2018 09:54, Lester Caine wrote: we are now in a situation where much accurately mapped material is simply dumped when there is a change to the current situation. 1. it's not dumped, it's still in the

  1   2   >