Re: [Talk-GB] When is a hedge a wood?

[Chris Jones]

Hi Martin,

1) The boundary is is clearly a fence. Thats what stops you just walking across.

You can map the trees as several natural : tree or a tree_row depending on how 
long the row is I guess. Certainly not a hedge or wood.

2) The road is a highway, the grass is a verge.. the wiki suggests you can 
either tag the verge as a property of the highway or as a separate 
landuse=grass. Your call, but to me in this case its part of the highway.

—
Chris

> On 27 Aug 2018, at 05:35, Martin Wynne  wrote:
> 
> Rural boundaries can be extraordinarily difficult to map. For example, is 
> this:
> 
> https://goo.gl/maps/FtjMZiwNj542
> 
> a) a fence,
> 
> b) a hedge,
> 
> c) a very narrow wood,
> 
> d) all three at the same time?
> 
> Is the area in front of it
> 
> a) grass,
> 
> b) highway,
> 
> c) both?
> 
> (Not mapping from Google, I walked along there recently.)
> 
> Often a wood adjoins an open area such as a water meadow. If there is a fence 
> between them, the boundary is clear, even if the wood canopy overlaps into 
> the meadow. If there isn't a fence, where do you put the boundary? The edge 
> of the canopy? The line of tree trunks? Some imaginary line between the two?
> 
> Some trees are very large and their branches can extend a significant 
> distance - across a river for example.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Martin.
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Colin Smale]

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 Uxbridge is in Middlesex, and Bromley is in Kent, right?___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Neil Matthews]

*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. 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 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 legally abolished nor altered these
>> counties.
>>
>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 22:01 Colin Smale, > > wrote:
>>
>> Except that the "ceremonial counties" actually do exist, and
>> serve a function. They are formally called "Lieutenancy Areas"
>> and represent the jurisdiction of the Lord Lieutenant as direct
>> representative of the monarchy. Their boundaries are maintained
>> by a different legal process to the admin areas, and on occasions
>> can diverge for a limited period until they catch up with changes
>> to admin boundaries. And then there is the Stockton-on-Tees
>> anomaly...the borough is divided between the ceremonial counties
>> of Durham and North Yorkshire.
>>
>>
>> Thanks Colin,
>>
>> Yes, I was aware of how the ceremonial counties are defined. I think
>> if we're truly honest with ourselves we don't really map them because
>> lord lieutenancies (as wonderfully arcane and obscure as they are)
>> are of any real importance, but because they provide a vaguely
>> sensible and recognisable set of geographic areas that we can call
>> counties. Certainly if administrative importance were genuinely to be
>> our criteria for mapping we would be mapping all kinds of things
>> prior to lord lieutenancies.
>>
>> In practical terms lords lieutenant are historic, honorary crown
>> appointments and little more. If we actually believed this was
>> justification for mapping we could use the same arguments for mapping
>> the areas over which the royal duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall
>> perform various honorary and historic functions (such as appointing
>> the ever-so-important-in-the-present-day lords lieutenant) and
>> exercise special rights. Incidentally their legally-defined and
>> extant boundaries are the historic/traditional boundaries of the
>> counties of Lancashire and Cornwall :)
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Mapping horse steps?

[Martin Wynne]

I'm tempted to map these horse-mounting steps as

 stairway=to_heaven

 http://85a.co.uk/images/little_hereford7_960x800.jpg

 http://85a.co.uk/images/little_hereford8_960x500.jpg

Other suggestions welcome. Clearly horse riders need to know where these 
useful installations are located.


Martin.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] boundary mania

[Colin Smale]

On 2018-08-27 00:24, Mark Goodge wrote:

> On 26/08/2018 21:36, Colin Smale wrote: On 2018-08-26 21:17, David Woolley 
> wrote:
> 
> It looks to me as though boundaries can be defined recursively, so Hampshire, 
> rather than its bounding ways, ought to to be the object referenced in the 
> bigger entities. This wouldn't work in the case of civil parishes as 
> components of districts and UA's though. You cannot define a district as the 
> union of the parishes. There are unparished areas, detached parts and "lands 
> common" which complicate the model. However I believe every point in the UK 
> is within some district/UA, and every district is within a county, giving 
> 100% coverage at that level.

Every point is within a district, but not every district is within a
county - unless, that is, you consider a unitary authority to be
effectively two different entities that happen to have identical
boundaries. 

I think you understood what I meant. AIUI a UA is normally technically a
district. A city is an orthogonal concept- a "city council" can be a UA
(eg Nottingham), a District (eg Canterbury) or a Civil Parish (eg
Salisbury) that has been awarded that status. And not every city has its
own council of any type (eg Bath). 

And of course a council is not an area, it is an administrative body.
There are admin areas defined in law that do not have a corresponding
council, eg the county of Berkshire and many Civil Parishes. Sometimes
they play games with the naming: Rutland County Council is not a county
council, because there is no extant county of Rutland. It is a
non-metropolitan district with unitary status, whose council is formally
called Rutland County Council District Council. 

I stand by my comment that the "sum of parts" system could work down to
the district/UA level, and not down to the civil parish level.___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Dave F]

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 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 legally abolished nor altered these 
counties.


On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 22:01 Colin Smale, > wrote:


Except that the "ceremonial counties" actually do exist, and serve
a function. They are formally called "Lieutenancy Areas" and
represent the jurisdiction of the Lord Lieutenant as direct
representative of the monarchy. Their boundaries are maintained by
a different legal process to the admin areas, and on occasions can
diverge for a limited period until they catch up with changes to
admin boundaries. And then there is the Stockton-on-Tees
anomaly...the borough is divided between the ceremonial counties
of Durham and North Yorkshire.


Thanks Colin,

Yes, I was aware of how the ceremonial counties are defined. I think 
if we're truly honest with ourselves we don't really map them because 
lord lieutenancies (as wonderfully arcane and obscure as they are) are 
of any real importance, but because they provide a vaguely sensible 
and recognisable set of geographic areas that we can call counties. 
Certainly if administrative importance were genuinely to be our 
criteria for mapping we would be mapping all kinds of things prior to 
lord lieutenancies.


In practical terms lords lieutenant are historic, honorary crown 
appointments and little more. If we actually believed this was 
justification for mapping we could use the same arguments for mapping 
the areas over which the royal duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall 
perform various honorary and historic functions (such as appointing 
the ever-so-important-in-the-present-day lords lieutenant) and 
exercise special rights. Incidentally their legally-defined and extant 
boundaries are the historic/traditional boundaries of the counties of 
Lancashire and Cornwall :)


Kind regards,

Adam


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] When is a hedge a wood?

[Dave F]

When someone's appearance is still presentable after being dragged 
backwards through one.


DaveF

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] When is a hedge a wood?

[Mark Goodge]

On 26/08/2018 23:16, Martin Wynne wrote:
Both. It's administratively and legally part of the highway, but it's 
the part of the highway which consists of a grass verge.


Thanks Mark.

I think I should map that as

landuse=highway

landcover=grass

However for some inexplicable reason, landuse=highway isn't allowed. I 
was told the reason is in the name Open *STREET* Map, although I'm none 
the wiser.


This is a terminology thing again. OSM uses "highway" to refer to the 
route you travel along, with various tags to indicate the importance and 
permissions of the route, while UK legislation uses the word to refer to 
a legal function. Another instance where this can cause problems is 
something like a public square, in many cases these are legally highways 
even if they are, at least most of the time, pedestrianised. But you 
can't tag an area as a highway, only a way. So you can't tag a public 
open space as a highway even if, legally, it is.


Mark

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] boundary mania

[Mark Goodge]

On 26/08/2018 21:36, Colin Smale wrote:

On 2018-08-26 21:17, David Woolley wrote:

It looks to me as though boundaries can be defined recursively, so 
Hampshire, rather than its bounding ways, ought to to be the object 
referenced in the bigger entities.
This wouldn't work in the case of civil parishes as components of 
districts and UA's though. You cannot define a district as the union of 
the parishes. There are unparished areas, detached parts and "lands 
common" which complicate the model. However I believe every point in the 
UK is within some district/UA, and every district is within a county, 
giving 100% coverage at that level.



Every point is within a district, but not every district is within a 
county - unless, that is, you consider a unitary authority to be 
effectively two different entities that happen to have identical boundaries.


From a legal perspective, districts (or boroughs, cities and unitary 
authorities) are the fundamental building blocks of British local 
government. Parishes or communities, where they exist, are subdivisions 
of districts. Counties or metropolitan authorities, where they exist, 
are unions of districts. The district is the "principal authority" 
defined in legislation, everything else is relative to it.


(As an aside, this is also one of the big drivers of nostalgia for the 
pre-1974 "historic" counties. The Victorian system had the county as the 
fundamental unit. So even where we still have counties, they are not the 
same as they used to be).


Mark

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] When is a hedge a wood?

[Martin Wynne]

Both. It's administratively and legally part of the highway, but it's 
the part of the highway which consists of a grass verge.


Thanks Mark.

I think I should map that as

landuse=highway

landcover=grass

However for some inexplicable reason, landuse=highway isn't allowed. I 
was told the reason is in the name Open *STREET* Map, although I'm none 
the wiser.


Martin.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Adam Snape]

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 legally
abolished nor altered these counties.

On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 22:01 Colin Smale,  wrote:

> Except that the "ceremonial counties" actually do exist, and serve a
> function. They are formally called "Lieutenancy Areas" and represent the
> jurisdiction of the Lord Lieutenant as direct representative of the
> monarchy. Their boundaries are maintained by a different legal process to
> the admin areas, and on occasions can diverge for a limited period until
> they catch up with changes to admin boundaries. And then there is the
> Stockton-on-Tees anomaly...the borough is divided between the ceremonial
> counties of Durham and North Yorkshire.
>

Thanks Colin,

Yes, I was aware of how the ceremonial counties are defined. I think if
we're truly honest with ourselves we don't really map them because lord
lieutenancies (as wonderfully arcane and obscure as they are) are of any
real importance, but because they provide a vaguely sensible and
recognisable set of geographic areas that we can call counties. Certainly
if administrative importance were genuinely to be our criteria for mapping
we would be mapping all kinds of things prior to lord lieutenancies.

In practical terms lords lieutenant are historic, honorary crown
appointments and little more. If we actually believed this was
justification for mapping we could use the same arguments for mapping the
areas over which the royal duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall perform
various honorary and historic functions (such as appointing the
ever-so-important-in-the-present-day lords lieutenant) and exercise special
rights. Incidentally their legally-defined and extant boundaries are the
historic/traditional boundaries of the counties of Lancashire and Cornwall
:)

Kind regards,

Adam
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Colin Smale]

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 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.

Except that the "ceremonial counties" actually do exist, and serve a
function. They are formally called "Lieutenancy Areas" and represent the
jurisdiction of the Lord Lieutenant as direct representative of the
monarchy. Their boundaries are maintained by a different legal process
to the admin areas, and on occasions can diverge for a limited period
until they catch up with changes to admin boundaries. And then there is
the Stockton-on-Tees anomaly...the borough is divided between the
ceremonial counties of Durham and North Yorkshire. 

While we are at it, let's kill off the admin_level=5 regions and
introduce the new combined authorities with a metro mayor at that level.___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Dave F]

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 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'.


It would be helpful if we ignored the fact they're named 'historic'. 
Everything is historic. That new sandwich shop that opened last week on 
the corner? It has a history of one week.


What's important is that they are not current.

I feel I should stress at this point that we do map a fairly similar 
set of boundaries, the so-called 'ceremonial counties'.


My understanding is these are separate from admin boundaries & current?

DaveF
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Colin Smale]

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.
> 
> Should this consensus be among OSM mappers or OSM users?

Normally OSM is very mapper-centric, possibly too much so. If there was
a bit more engagement from the data consumer community we might reach a
more balanced consensus, rather than the current status where we are
often afraid to raise the quality bar for contributors for fear of
frightening them off or something. 

Data modelling is an art Striking the right balance between too much
and not enough detail, what to put in and what to leave out, remembering
that what you want to get out determines what you have to put in. If you
expect to be able to see the distinction between A and B, then the data
to enable that distinction must be in the database directly, or it must
be derivable from data that IS present. Until the tagging is sufficient
for some algorithm to make that distinction, the problem has not been
solved.___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Adam Snape]

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 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

Re: [Talk-GB] boundary mania

[Colin Smale]

On 2018-08-26 21:17, David Woolley wrote:

> It looks to me as though boundaries can be defined recursively, so Hampshire, 
> rather than its bounding ways, ought to to be the object referenced in the 
> bigger entities.

This wouldn't work in the case of civil parishes as components of
districts and UA's though. You cannot define a district as the union of
the parishes. There are unparished areas, detached parts and "lands
common" which complicate the model. However I believe every point in the
UK is within some district/UA, and every district is within a county,
giving 100% coverage at that level.___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Mark Goodge]

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 Wikipedia's "Articles for 
Deletion" where issues like this can be discussed and, hopefully, a 
consensus reached?


Mark

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Mark Goodge]

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 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

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Dave F]

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 W. pointed out, it's the thin end of the wedge.

DaveF

On 26/08/2018 19:45, 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 deletion.


Kind regards,

Adam

On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 16:38 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.



On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 at 15:42, Colin Smale mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>> wrote:

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 be
documented for fear of legitimising it.

Is this the best we can do?



On 26 August 2018 16:27:58 CEST, Andrew Black
mailto:andrewdbl...@googlemail.com>> wrote:

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
mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>> wrote:

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 prefer things
that are in OSM to be documented in some way, e.g. in
the wiki

Given the "live and let live" philosophy that OSM
otherwise espouses, maybe we can go for option 3?

Or we get some kind of consensus that they are to be
removed, but then I think it should be the
responsibility of the DWG to make that determination,
communicate the decision, and do the reverts.

On 2018-08-26 13:27, Dave F wrote:


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 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 elsewhere that I
am not aware of?



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org

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

[Mark Goodge]

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 consensus be among OSM mappers or OSM users?


Most users will be blissfully unaware that they are there, since they 
won't be rendered in most cases.


Mark

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] When is a hedge a wood?

[Mark Goodge]

On 26/08/2018 20:35, Martin Wynne wrote:
Rural boundaries can be extraordinarily difficult to map. For example, 
is this:


  https://goo.gl/maps/FtjMZiwNj542

a) a fence,

b) a hedge,

c) a very narrow wood,

d) all three at the same time?


I'd call it a hedgerow. I'm not sure if OSM has a tag for that, distinct 
to a hedge (which is a different thing, despite the similarity in name).



Is the area in front of it

a) grass,

b) highway,

c) both?


Both. It's administratively and legally part of the highway, but it's 
the part of the highway which consists of a grass verge.


Mark

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Martin Wynne]

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?

Martin.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] boundary mania

[Mark Goodge]

On 26/08/2018 20:01, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

On 08/26/2018 12:46 PM, Colin Smale wrote:

It has gone all quiet here, and in the mean time smb001 has been making
steady progress across England.


I think he shouldn't have done this. He should have argued his case here
and the community should have come to an explicit resolution, rather
than one party creating a "status quo".


I agree.


Personally, I am very much against mapping historic boundaries in OSM,
mostly because the exemption from the "on the ground" rules that apply
to current administrative borders (they are so important that we make an
exception) don't hold for historic boundaries.


And also because there is no single entity otherwise known as the 
"historic" boundaries. Even before the major changes in the 1970s 
(objection to which is what a lot of the passion for the historic 
boundaries stems from), they were not perfectly stable. The Victorians 
were inveterate tinkerers, they adjusted boundaries continually even if 
only at a much more local level than the 1974 reforms.


Any mapped historic boundaries are, therefore, nothing more than a 
snapshot of what they were at a particular moment in time, not a record 
of how things have always been. Even the KML downloads provided by the 
Association of British Counties, the prime cheerleader for the historic 
counties, is offered in two different definitions which match different 
snapshots of the boundaries.


The historic boundaries are useful for a number of historic research and 
educational uses. But they are only properly meaningful when used in the 
form which matches the date being researched. Unless we are going to 
have every variant of the historic boundaries mapped on OSM (in which 
case, we should also map newer but now defunct administrative 
boundaries, such as the county of Avon), there's no real value in 
mapping them in OSM at all. Leave them to dedicated historic projects 
where the data is relevant.


Mark


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Colin Smale]

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 
> deletion.

I haven't done a scientific analysis of all the standpoints expressed on
this thread over the past weeks, but I suspect the support for deletion
is not unanimous, although it may be a majority of the relatively small
number of participants. There is a case being made for retention as
well. BUT, if we are to allow this data to persist in OSM, then we
should at least ensure it is appropriately documented. There is a wiki
page for boundary=historic, which I think makes it clear that these
boundaries should not be in OSM. We will need to find a turn of phrase
for the wiki page to explain that there are exceptions to the general
rule. 

If the data is to remain in the database I would definitely like to see
some kind of metadata added to the relations, with source and either
start/end dates or a single validity date.___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] When is a hedge a wood?

[Martin Wynne]

Rural boundaries can be extraordinarily difficult to map. For example, 
is this:


 https://goo.gl/maps/FtjMZiwNj542

a) a fence,

b) a hedge,

c) a very narrow wood,

d) all three at the same time?

Is the area in front of it

a) grass,

b) highway,

c) both?

(Not mapping from Google, I walked along there recently.)

Often a wood adjoins an open area such as a water meadow. If there is a 
fence between them, the boundary is clear, even if the wood canopy 
overlaps into the meadow. If there isn't a fence, where do you put the 
boundary? The edge of the canopy? The line of tree trunks? Some 
imaginary line between the two?


Some trees are very large and their branches can extend a significant 
distance - across a river for example.


Thanks.

Martin.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] boundary mania

[David Woolley]

On 26/08/18 20:01, Frederik Ramm wrote:

I think we should all think twice before duplicating and triplicating
data in OSM just because there's yet another boundary that includes
Hampshire. We should find a way to reference existing boundaries instead
of copying them.


It looks to me as though boundaries can be defined recursively, so 
Hampshire, rather than its bounding ways, ought to to be the object 
referenced in the bigger entities.


On the original question, I would say that the thin end of the wedge is 
going in and needs to be stopped.


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] boundary mania (was: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database)

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 08/26/2018 12:46 PM, Colin Smale wrote:
> It has gone all quiet here, and in the mean time smb001 has been making
> steady progress across England. 

I think he shouldn't have done this. He should have argued his case here
and the community should have come to an explicit resolution, rather
than one party creating a "status quo".

Personally, I am very much against mapping historic boundaries in OSM,
mostly because the exemption from the "on the ground" rules that apply
to current administrative borders (they are so important that we make an
exception) don't hold for historic boundaries.

But there's a general problem with boundary relations getting out of
hand. Take this little unnamed waterway here

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/614127384

which is meanwhile a member of 19 different boundary relations:

* South East England European Parliamant Constituency
* The admin_level=8 boundaries New Forest and East Dorset
* New Forest West UK Parliament Constituency (4152802)
* Alderholt Civil Parish and Damerham Civil Parish
* Cranborne Chase & West Wiltshire Downs AONB (2664452)
* Dorset historic county and Wiltshire historic county
* an administrative region called "South West England" and an
administrative region called "South East England", both admin_level 5
* The Hampshire Constabulary boundary ("boundary=police") which exists
twice (relations 3999378, 8188274) if any proof was needed that this is
getting out of hand even for those who added it
* The Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service boundary ("boundary=fire")
* Hampshire County and Dorset County
* Hampshire Ceremonial County and Dorset Ceremonial County
* A statistical boundary called "Hampshire and Isle of Wight"

I have not analyzed these in detail and I won't make an attempt to tell
the readers of this mailing list which of these make sense to have in
your country. But I have a hunch that, say, the statistical boundary
"Hampshire and Isle of Wight" is not actually defined as a boundary. I
have a hunch that if the boundary of Hampshire were to change, then this
statistical area would also change - because it is *not* defined by
geometry, but just by reference to existing administrative boundaries.

I think we should all think twice before duplicating and triplicating
data in OSM just because there's yet another boundary that includes
Hampshire. We should find a way to reference existing boundaries instead
of copying them.

Practically all of the relations above have version numbers in the
hundreds, version numbers that have again increased when smb1001 did his
historic boundary mapping - of course he hasn't changed anything in the
statistical boundary "Hampshire and Isle of Wight" but still he's listed
as last modifier of this relation just because he has just split up a
way that was part of the Hampshire boundary.

I think if we continue heaping ever more boundary relations onto what we
have, we'll make things less and less understandable, less and less
maintainable.

But that's a general remark, not *specificall* aimed at history county
boundaries.

Bye
Frederik

PS: Of course, public transport relations are an even bigger culprit.
There are a handful of ways in OSM in England that are member of more
then 100 relations, mostly bus routes as far as I can see.

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Adam Snape]

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 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.
>
>
>
> 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 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 be documented for fear of legitimising it.
>>
>> Is this the best we can do?
>>
>>
>>
>> On 26 August 2018 16:27:58 CEST, Andrew Black <
>> andrewdbl...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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 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 prefer things that are in OSM
 to be documented in some way, e.g. in the wiki

 Given the "live and let live" philosophy that OSM otherwise espouses,
 maybe we can go for option 3?


 Or we get some kind of consensus that they are to be removed, but then
 I think it should be the responsibility of the DWG to make that
 determination, communicate the decision, and do the reverts.

 On 2018-08-26 13:27, Dave F wrote:

 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 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 elsewhere that I am not aware of?


 ___
 Talk-GB mailing 
 listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



 ___
 Talk-GB mailing list
 Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

 ___
 Talk-GB mailing list
 Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

>>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Andrew Black]

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 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 be documented for fear of legitimising it.
>
> Is this the best we can do?
>
>
>
> On 26 August 2018 16:27:58 CEST, Andrew Black 
> wrote:
>>
>> 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 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 prefer things that are in OSM to
>>> be documented in some way, e.g. in the wiki
>>>
>>> Given the "live and let live" philosophy that OSM otherwise espouses,
>>> maybe we can go for option 3?
>>>
>>>
>>> Or we get some kind of consensus that they are to be removed, but then I
>>> think it should be the responsibility of the DWG to make that
>>> determination, communicate the decision, and do the reverts.
>>>
>>> On 2018-08-26 13:27, Dave F wrote:
>>>
>>> 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 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 elsewhere that I am not aware of?
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-GB mailing 
>>> listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>
>> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Colin Smale]

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 be documented 
for fear of legitimising it. 

Is this the best we can do?



On 26 August 2018 16:27:58 CEST, Andrew Black  
wrote:
>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 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 prefer things that are in OSM
>to
>> be documented in some way, e.g. in the wiki
>>
>> Given the "live and let live" philosophy that OSM otherwise espouses,
>> maybe we can go for option 3?
>>
>>
>> Or we get some kind of consensus that they are to be removed, but
>then I
>> think it should be the responsibility of the DWG to make that
>> determination, communicate the decision, and do the reverts.
>>
>> On 2018-08-26 13:27, Dave F wrote:
>>
>> 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 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 elsewhere that I am not aware of?
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing
>listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Andrew Black]

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 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 prefer things that are in OSM to
> be documented in some way, e.g. in the wiki
>
> Given the "live and let live" philosophy that OSM otherwise espouses,
> maybe we can go for option 3?
>
>
> Or we get some kind of consensus that they are to be removed, but then I
> think it should be the responsibility of the DWG to make that
> determination, communicate the decision, and do the reverts.
>
> On 2018-08-26 13:27, Dave F wrote:
>
> 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 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 elsewhere that I am not aware of?
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing 
> listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Philip Barnes]

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)


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Adam Snape]

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, however, take some issue with the source chosen. The OS's dataset is
based upon the administrative counties formed after the local government
act 1888. Whilst no doubt very useful for genealogistst or those with an
interest in 1888-1974 administrative history, the LGA really marked the
first significant divergence between counties as administrative entities
and their traditional boundaries.

As the aim of the exercise would appear to be mapping the traditional
boundaries rather than mapping obsolete administrative boundaries, I echo
the earlier suggestion that the Historic Counties Trust's dataset would be
a more appropriate source.

Kind regards,

Adam



On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 11:47 Colin Smale,  wrote:

> 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 elsewhere that I am not aware of?
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Martin Wynne]

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.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Colin Smale]

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 prefer things that are in OSM to
be documented in some way, e.g. in the wiki 

Given the "live and let live" philosophy that OSM otherwise espouses,
maybe we can go for option 3?

Or we get some kind of consensus that they are to be removed, but then I
think it should be the responsibility of the DWG to make that
determination, communicate the decision, and do the reverts. 

On 2018-08-26 13:27, Dave F wrote:

> 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 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 elsewhere that I am not aware of? 
>> 
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Dave F]

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 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 elsewhere that I am not aware of?



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Colin Smale]

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 elsewhere that I am not aware of?___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb