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 <r...@technomancy.org> 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
