On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 21:20 Mark Goodge, <m...@good-stuff.co.uk> 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 the sense used used by proponents of > the traditional English counties. > > Mark > I quite agree. Much of the most strident opposition seems to be to adding an historical (ie. now obsolete) feature. Where proponents are using the term 'historic' they mean 'of long-standing importance'. 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 council administrative areas eg. the ceremonial county of Nottinghamshire actually contains Nottingham! If our mapping of boundary relations should only extend to administrative functions we probably ought to reconsider our inclusion of ceremonial counties. If we can see the value to the database of a county as a geographic concept divorced from administration there might well be a case for including our traditional counties. Adam >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
