I read that thread, I figured there was something about it before, just couldn't recall.
If I'm honest, I think my opinion has changed from the one I originally stated in that thread on the basis that townland boundaries are changed through statutory instruments only (as far as I am aware). I'd welcome being corrected though especially in the context of what was mentioned in that previous thread with regards to how boundaries are treated where there is coastal erosion etc. It could well be that there's a set way of handling all these variations and we're meeting all of them presently or might need to modify some things a little. Would the smoothened boundary data from the CSO site give any indication? Dave On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:45 PM, moltonel 3x Combo <molto...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 15/05/2015, Donal Diamond <donal.diam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > There's an earlier thread on topic here where conflicting advice was > given > > ;-) > > > > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ie/2014-October/000741.html > > > > So looks like it is worthwhile opening up the discussion where we can all > > agree on a common approach. > > I don't see many conflicts of opinion in that thread : > * Brian was following the GSGS boundary but started the thread for enquiry > * Conor suggested following the new shoreline instead > * Dacor agreed to follow the new shoreline, based on IRC discussion > * No reply from brian, I assume he followed Conor and Dacor's answers > > As for myself, before reviewing that old thread, the same "follow the > new shoreline" principle was the one that appealed me most (don't like > the idea of land that doesn't belong to a townland).. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
