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, <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> 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