Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Raths / ringforts

[Brian Tuffy]

Hey all,
I just wanted to add a few things although I am not that active on OSM
these days.
The National Monuments Service seems to have open data available that
includes ringforts and similar structures. I am not sure about the
licence compatibility and mass importing and all that This could be a
way to get the majority of ringforts into OSM considering the large
number of forts. Also, the naming schemes they use are somewhat
official, I suppose, and should guide OSM tagging schemes to
distinguish different types of forts (distinguishing between cashels,
earthworks, and raths), but I am not sure how that translates into OSM
tagging. To be honest, importing this data is a massive job if you
also want to consider the other archaeological structures, but in OSM
features are supposed to be visible landmarks.
https://data.gov.ie/dataset/national-monuments-service-archaeological-survey-of-ireland
Here's an extract of that data:
Enclosure
Children's burial ground
Enclosure
Castle - unclassified
Bee-boles
Gateway (present location)
Earthwork
Castle - unclassified
Mound
Enclosure
Enclosure
Ringfort - cashel
Ringfort - cashel
Children's burial ground
Ritual site - holy well
Standing stone
Earthwork
Castle - tower house

What are Bee-boles anyway?  Ahhh
(https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Bee_bole)...sorry.
Anyway, I agree with the tagging scheme in Colm's email for generic
ringforts that an OSM user might want to add. I think it is best to
not worry about distinguishing ringforts too much at this early stage.

Brian T

On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 1:52 PM Colm Moore  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > Any update on how folk are progressing with this?
>
> Rory and I spent some time going through them and earthworks=rath is no more. 
> However, perhaps only 5% of ring forts are mapped. I find the split between 
> ring fort, hill fort and ring ditch seems to be somewhat nebulous, so mapping 
> the difference can be difficult.
>
> The correct tagging appears to be:
> * fortification_type=ringfort
> * historic=archaeological_site
> * site_type=fortification
> * historic:civilization=celtic <-- I've added this, Rory hasn't
>
> > earthworks=rath< 1248 instances - Clare and Kerry only
> > fortification_type=hill_fort   < confused use - multiple different fort 
> > types
> > historic=fort  < confused use - multiple different fort types
> > fortification=ring_ditch  < minor
> > hillfort  < minor
> > historic=hillfort  < minor
> > historic=ring fort  < minor
> > military=fort  < minor
> > note=Ancient fort  < minor
> > note=Fort  < minor
> > note=Ring Fort?  < minor
> > ruins=fort  < minor
> > site_type=earthwork  < minor
> > site_type=enclosure  < minor
>
> Colm
> ___
> 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

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Ringforts

[Brian Tuffy]

Hi Keith,
There were some already mapped in my area and so I started mapping some
myself here,
http://histosm.org/#11/-9.1571/53.827/0/

HistOSM gives a clearer picture of these kinds of things, the more
historical things get, the less relevant they are for OSM though.
I wonder is it possible to add to HistOSM but not to OSM???

I have used the following tagging, which I adapted from somewhere else in
Ireland. I also try to add the names if possible.
historic = archaeological_site
site_type= fortification
fortification_type = ringfort

But I have seen other tagging schemes such as:

   - historic=archaeological_site
   - type=ringfort



   - archaeological_site=fort
   - historic=archaeological_site
   - name=Abbey Grey Fort
   - source=GSGS 3906



   - archaeological_site=cashel
   - historic=archaeological_site
   - man_made=embankment



Some might argue that ringforts are not important to map, and I suppose
they are insignificant if there is no trace of them visible (possibly good
to map them for Histosm.org though!).  In rural areas, ringforts can be
important landmarks and also townland names are sometimes named after
ringforts and it's rewarding to see a ringfort in a certain townland in
that case.
Note that the rings/ways don't appear in the OSM standard view, just a
archaeological symbol.

I stopped mapping ringforts for a few reasons. (1) There is just way to
many of them around (2) not sure of the tagging scheme to use myself (3)
Somehow hoping that the National Monuments Service will provide their open
data at some point in the future (4) Not sure how useful this data is for
OSM.
http://webgis.archaeology.ie/historicenvironment/

As far as I can see there is no "standard" for mapping ringforts in Ireland
and no way to distinguish Carn/ringforts etc.
Hopefully we can decide on some standard way of tagging ringforts in this
discussion and I would be happy to add them again too.

Brian T



On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Keith  wrote:

> Helo,
>
> Just wondering if there is any common tags used to tag
> ringforts/rath/lios's etc., and if many have been mapped to date ?
>
> Keith
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Splitting of CIvil Parishes?

[Brian Tuffy]

I agree that the civil parish borders should go through the townland's e.g.
(Ballyboleen and Magheraeagh etc.)
If you look at the historic OSI 6 inch 1837 map, you can see the borders
going through the townlands.
http://map.geohive.ie/mapviewer.html

That map belongs to OSI so I would say that is only a guide, if you know
what I mean. Do we have another open licence source with these borders?

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Rory McCann  wrote:

> I have mapped CPs which cross through the middle of a townland. OSM is
> flexible and allows you to do that. There's nothing wrong with doing that.
>
> Yes the PlaceNamesNI site seems to match how you've mapped it in OSM,
> however maybe they are using some data model which isn't flexible and
> doesn't support more complicated things, and they have a simple hack
> like that. Or maybe they're wrong.
>
> Within OSM, the "one real world thing = one OSM object" means that
> you've added 3 separate CPs, one called Drummaul, one Ahoghill and a
> third called "Ahoghill/Drummaul". I don't think that's correct, I think
> there are only 2 CPs here.
>
> OSM would allow you to have overlapping CPs, but I don't think that's
> correct either.
>
> I'd suggest mapping the CP as going through the middle of the townland.
> Or moving the townland entirely into one or the other CP. The Memorial
> Atlas map[1] implies the Drummaul border is more north than where it is
> now in OSM.
>
> [1]
> http://maps.openstreetmap.ie/oocmaps.html?zoom=13=54.
> 81657=-6.34503=BFFFTFF
>
>
> On 21/02/17 22:10, Stephen Roulston wrote:
> > You are quite correct KDDA. “Definitive” is too strong. I too have
> spotted errors in it, or at least differences between it and other sources.
> Nonetheless, it is a work of considerable authority from sound academic
> sources - on such a scale it is unlikely to have avoided all errors.
> >
> > I have just dug out Volume 4 of County Antrim I: the Baronies of Toome,
> part of the place-names of Northern Ireland series which, unfortunately,
> stopped appearing when the Ulster Placenames Project at Queen’s in Belfast
> was closed down. This particular volume is by Pat McKay.
> >
> > On p.15, it says:
> >
> > “The civil parish of Drummaul (Randalstown) is situated in the barony of
> Toome Upper, and covers an area of 32,394 acres, of which 11,472 are in
> Lough Neagh (we stop at the shore, I notice) and 171 in the river Main
> (Census, 1851). It is bounded on the east by the parishes of Antrim, Grange
> of Shilnavodan and Connor, on the north by the parish of Ahoghill, on the
> west by parishes of Grange of Ballyscullion and Duncan and on the south by
> Lough Neagh. It is made up of 49 full town lands and the greater part of
> two other town lands - Maghereagh and Ballybollen - each of which has a
> small portion in the neighbouring parishes of Antrim and Ahoghill
> respectively.. The parish has a “detached portion’, consisting of the four
> townlands of Ballynacraigy, Killyfad, Portlee and Ballynaleney, which lie
> along the north-west shore of Lough Neagh, approximately two miles form the
> main section of the parish; two of them, Portlesss and Ballynaleney, are
> themselves divided into two parts, the “detached portion’ in each case
> lying a short distance to the west of the main townland”
> >
> > This would seem to agree with the map as we have it. A complication is
> perhaps that Dr McKay was involved in both this book and in the
> placenamesni.org  website - it might be one
> mistake replicated.
> >
> > There seems nothing within the two problematic townlands (Ballybollen
> and Maghereagh) to say what bits are Drummaul and what bits are not.
> >
> > It does seem to confirm the possibility of townlands having parts in
> different civil parishes.
> >
> > Stephen_Co_Antrim
> >
> >
> >> On 21 Feb 2017, at 20:34, Killyfole and District Development
> Association  wrote:
> >>
> >> I have actually found a few instances where placenamesni.org is
> actually
> >> wrong!  Especially where there are two or more townlands of the same
> name, but
> >> located in different Parishes, split townlands and townlands totally
> >> encompassed in another parish.   I did try to get them to fix the data,
> but my
> >> phone calls fell on deaf ears it seems.
> >>
> >> Most of the issues in my area were easily resolved by speaking to
> locals and
> >> the Parish map is a brilliant source now as well.
> >>
> >> http://maps.openstreetmap.ie/oocmaps.html?
> >> zoom=8=53.55822=-7.85303=BF
> >>
> >> KDDA
> >>
> >> On Tuesday, 21 February 2017 15:16:23 GMT Stephen Roulston wrote:
> >>> I think I may have mapped those. It was a while ago, and I had just
> started
> >>> with boundaries. I remember being very confused.
> >>>
> >>> If you look at http://www.placenamesni.org/map.php
> >>>  and zoom in to the Drummaul
> area, you
> >>> can see that they distinguish between 

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Typos in Townland names

[Brian Tuffy]

Thanks for the feedback, I agree. I have given them their unique Logainm
ref tags and, in an effort to help distinguish them, I have given them an
alt_name "Rahard - Robeen Parish" etc. I leave all three with the name=
Rahard.

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Patrick Matthews <mullinalag...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Brian,
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Brian Tuffy <brian.tu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks, I have started mapping some "X (part of)" townlands as exclaves
> now
> > (part of the 'parent' townland relation). This works well for the most
> > part. I noticed that the 'parent' Townland usually has an additional
> area,
> > for example "including 10A 1R 7P  dd. portion". This area matches the
> area
> > of the exclave, so that makes sense.
> >
> > Here is a difficult example though, Although it says "Part of Rahard" it
> is
> > not obvious that it is an exclave as the 'parent' townland is about 4
> > townlands to the North West (There is even a third unrelated "Rahard" to
> > the west which makes it difficult). I can identify the correct parent
> > townland by matching the E.D. and the "area ...d.d. portion". The areas
> > match, so it IS an exclave, but a strange one. The areas are relatively
> the
> > same size and its not obvious why it is an exclave and not another
> townland
> > with the same name. I will leave it alone for now.
> > exclave:
> > http://maps.openstreetmap.ie/?zoom=16=53.63809=-9.
> > 10907=B00TTFFF
> > Parent:
> > http://maps.openstreetmap.ie/?zoom=17=53.67605=-9.
> > 161=B00TTFFF
>
>
>
> They're in different civil parishes but have been drawn into the same DED.
> In this case, I would say that
> they're two separate townlands which just happen to have the same name and
> are being incorrectly
> treated as two parts of the same townland.(This is a different issue to
> having a single townland "split"
> between civil parishes.) I suspect that they will have different logainm
> references as well. I made a
> similar change last week to the two Corravillas in Shercock ED (Cavan) when
> I was finishing up the
> EDs there.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Another somewhat unrelated question is, Could "Bal of Dookinnely (Calvy)"
> > (Ball Dumha Cinn Aille) be an exclave of nearby "Dookinnely (Calvy)"
> (Dumha
> > Cinn Aille)? In Irish, Ball can mean 'part of' and we are on Achill
> Island
> > here, so it is in the Gaeltacht. As far as I understand the (Calvy)
> ending
> > is a family name in the area. The townland was named after landowners?
> The
> > common (Calvy) part in both townlands suggests they are linked. I somehow
> > think that "Bal of Dookinnely (Calvy)" should still remain as a separate
> > townland, at least for now.
> > http://askaboutireland.ie/griffith-valuation/index.xml?
> > action=doNameSearch=0=0=Submit&
> > familyname=calvy===MAYO&
> > unionname==
> >
> >
>
> I'd be inclined to leave it as is.
>
>
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Brian Hollinshead <
> br...@hollinshead.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Re Exclave
> > > try Kiltiernan in County Dublin in townlands.ie
> > >
> > > and Kinnitty as CP, both enclaves belong to eslewhere external CPs
> > >
> > > On 17 February 2017 at 16:03, Rory McCann <r...@technomancy.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > > > Hash: SHA1
> > > >
> > > > On 17/02/17 16:38, Brian Tuffy wrote:
> > > > > Just to be clear, if it is "X and Y" you should treat it as "X and
> > > > > Y", as it says on the wiki page. If it is "X or Y" then it should
> > > > > be treated as "X" or "Y" in OSM but It looks like Logainm treats "X
> > > > > or Y" as "X or Y" and so two townland names have one ref tag. The
> > > > > thing is your script will look for "Lisnakirka or Milebush" but in
> > > > > OSM it is name=Milebush and alt_name= Lis...
> > > > > https://www.logainm.ie/35706.aspx
> > > >
> > > > OK, that sounds a little more complicated. I think I'll leave it
> alone
> > > > then. We can always just find townlands with an "and" and without a
> > > > logainm:ref and manually add them. Sometimes manually adding it is
> > > > quicker than programming complicated rule

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Typos in Townland names

[Brian Tuffy]

Thanks, I have started mapping some "X (part of)" townlands as exclaves now
(part of the 'parent' townland relation). This works well for the most
part. I noticed that the 'parent' Townland usually has an additional area,
for example "including 10A 1R 7P  dd. portion". This area matches the area
of the exclave, so that makes sense.

Here is a difficult example though, Although it says "Part of Rahard" it is
not obvious that it is an exclave as the 'parent' townland is about 4
townlands to the North West (There is even a third unrelated "Rahard" to
the west which makes it difficult). I can identify the correct parent
townland by matching the E.D. and the "area ...d.d. portion". The areas
match, so it IS an exclave, but a strange one. The areas are relatively the
same size and its not obvious why it is an exclave and not another townland
with the same name. I will leave it alone for now.
exclave:
http://maps.openstreetmap.ie/?zoom=16=53.63809=-9.10907=B00TTFFF
Parent:
http://maps.openstreetmap.ie/?zoom=17=53.67605=-9.161=B00TTFFF


Another somewhat unrelated question is, Could "Bal of Dookinnely (Calvy)"
(Ball Dumha Cinn Aille) be an exclave of nearby "Dookinnely (Calvy)" (Dumha
Cinn Aille)? In Irish, Ball can mean 'part of' and we are on Achill Island
here, so it is in the Gaeltacht. As far as I understand the (Calvy) ending
is a family name in the area. The townland was named after landowners? The
common (Calvy) part in both townlands suggests they are linked. I somehow
think that "Bal of Dookinnely (Calvy)" should still remain as a separate
townland, at least for now.
http://askaboutireland.ie/griffith-valuation/index.xml?
action=doNameSearch=0=0=Submit&
familyname=calvy===MAYO&
unionname==





On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Brian Hollinshead <br...@hollinshead.net>
wrote:

> Re Exclave
> try Kiltiernan in County Dublin in townlands.ie
>
> and Kinnitty as CP, both enclaves belong to eslewhere external CPs
>
> On 17 February 2017 at 16:03, Rory McCann <r...@technomancy.org> wrote:
>
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On 17/02/17 16:38, Brian Tuffy wrote:
> > > Just to be clear, if it is "X and Y" you should treat it as "X and
> > > Y", as it says on the wiki page. If it is "X or Y" then it should
> > > be treated as "X" or "Y" in OSM but It looks like Logainm treats "X
> > > or Y" as "X or Y" and so two townland names have one ref tag. The
> > > thing is your script will look for "Lisnakirka or Milebush" but in
> > > OSM it is name=Milebush and alt_name= Lis...
> > > https://www.logainm.ie/35706.aspx
> >
> > OK, that sounds a little more complicated. I think I'll leave it alone
> > then. We can always just find townlands with an "and" and without a
> > logainm:ref and manually add them. Sometimes manually adding it is
> > quicker than programming complicated rules.
> >
> > > It confusses me why it is Lower or Northern (North is up right!! :)
> > > ) but I think it might be lower in elevation possibly? I doubt it.
> > > Upper Bavaria is the south because it rises to the alps.  More
> > > interestingly, up might be to the south? you go up towards Rome in
> > > Irish?? More More interestingly, I hear that Irish is one of those
> > > languages that has an in-built sense of direction, you wouldn't say
> > > move over to the left, you would say move east or something
> > > like that. I am not sure about it. Anyway, back to the map.
> >
> > Usually "Upper" is upstream, and "lower" is downstream, near the mouth
> > of the river. e.g. the Upper Rhine Plane is in south Germany, because
> > that's near where the Rhine starts. So when you see "Upper X" that's
> > usually more "upsteam" or something.
> >
> > > I agree with you that it should be mapped as an exclave. I have not
> > > seen any like that so that's why I suggested to have two
> > > townlands.
> >
> > I don't know if I've seen it with townlands. It's more common with
> > Civil Parishes.
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> > Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
> >
> > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYpx69AAoJEOrWdmeZivv2a/EIAKwvRsri1/hodVTDoy936q8w
> > nrJzEdDGpfTHU/7MyyNRfcqrtAfp41x+qgr13jTmGC3yGMraM9waj9UZLdj9h7WG
> > u0zLX1Lb6DX3FfSsKkXI47N3/bTCqQ5ZqdzBmAfJzjypd9fSPkTwJDBNdoiBBgCx
> > UepxqQqAXgAJ+3F957dT5EcXzoP1p4pVrPTI6HI6knXNnw1F9XeICXIWQPZva7+D
> > p6lDedvEQHA3Iwk7s2i1UqAXvf/TDd5ZCnJ+IO9Qm92VFmJ/N2k4umWsnQbLdKJy
> > WG3R3QqiccE4IajpcJbGjgKafXuuSpLQn/7hHi6pP0j+KaE7FTp5aAh2na0FZEQ=
> > =GEzN
> > -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
>
___
Talk-ie mailing list
Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Splitting of CIvil Parishes?

[Brian Tuffy]

Sorry, wrong link in last email

I have come across this before where a civil parish border runs through a
townland.
http://maps.openstreetmap.ie/oocmaps.html?zoom=16=53.73535=-9.09821=BTFFTTF

On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Brian Tuffy <brian.tu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> To me it looks like that 'shared civil parish' is just that the border of
> the civil parish runs through the middle of the townland, essentially
> splitting the townland in two. One part belonging to each civil parish.
> Ballybollen as seen on the 1837 6 inch OSI map shows two townlands with
> the same name beside each other and about half the size of what is
> currently in OSM.
> http://map.geohive.ie/mapviewer.html
>
>
> I have come across this before where a civil parish border runs through a
> townland.
> http://maps.openstreetmap.ie/oocmaps.html?zoom=12=54.
> 77448=-6.29902=BFFFTFF
>
> I recommend you try to draw the border with the aid of the 6 inch map and
> have the civil parish border follow that. I would leave the townland border
> as it is.
>
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Rory McCann <r...@technomancy.org> wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm looking at the logainm import script, and sometimes when it can't
>> find a match, I look at the data in OSM and manually add a the
>> logainm:ref if I can figure it out.
>>
>> And there's a few civil parishes which are tagged in a strange way.
>> Look at this map here:
>>
>> http://maps.openstreetmap.ie/oocmaps.html?zoom=12=54.774
>> 48=-6.29902=BFFFTFF
>>
>> The "Drummaul" CP. to the south-east is a small, one townland CP
>> called "Drummaul/Antrim", and to the north-west is
>> "Ahoghill/Drummaul". The memorial atlas doesn't show those as
>> different CPs. In Logainm there is only one "Drummaul". There is a lot
>> of other examples of tiny little CPs which seems to be a "mix" of 2
>> others.
>>
>> My first reaction would be to delete them and fix up the CP
>> boundaries, but is there a good reason for them to be tagged this way?
>> What's the source for these other CPs, since they are not on the
>> Memorial Atlas, or Logainm?
>>
>> When these are cleaned up, we'll be able to match up more things to
>> logainm.
>>
>> Rory
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
>> Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
>>
>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYqZgIAAoJEOrWdmeZivv2klMH/2I4env4M5SCb6ShIQKHDpUm
>> roKWh+LJjDLuynAcTjlRSOU7tZ30rSU+aGSSWLihv+kMJcFG4Jw1JRK0gJcQKG1i
>> mP9Dh6ubXS2PerD3+HJBg5YPj4t/YBaxYXuMZor2lEDsMXAtM8d+skuScWIkdjcU
>> wlWIS9rr7cvSIau4Q1wk88yQiPbWTe3LkcW6rmWVeldciKiS9LQHgdB7IU+4WiqQ
>> 0sT9DL1MiLJ5eBm5WI3391GdlDcQwWmS5lEULM3Wo158aklU/xGRm9pRL7xOEEc6
>> 8Ylg0lWOZ2LPUDIs6z9VqRQb30vSPHlZEd05aYIpF6OLthfnWPE/+UV4pog1B8c=
>> =lvJd
>> -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

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Typos in Townland names

[Brian Tuffy]

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Rory McCann <r...@technomancy.org> wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Some great, detailed advice here! 
>
> Townlands.ie shows how many objects have logainm:refs:
> https://www.townlands.ie/progress/#logainm It's currentlya botu 73% of
> townlands.
>
>
> On 17/02/17 14:51, Brian Tuffy wrote:
> > Alternative names or 'typos that are not typos': (A) Many townlands
> > have two official names on the map source, "Ballindoo or
> > Doocastle". Both are valid, We should try to find out which one is
> > commonly-used/dominant and use that one in the name= tag and the
> > other in the alt_name= tag.
>
> The logainm match up will only look at the name:en tag (or failing
> that the name) tag. It doesn't look at the alt_name (etc) tags.
> Perhaps it should. likewise it should split "X and Y" into "X" and "Y"
> and look at them.
>


Just to be clear, if it is "X and Y" you should treat it as "X and Y", as
it says on the wiki page.
If it is "X or Y" then it should be treated as "X" or "Y" in OSM but It
looks like Logainm treats "X or Y" as "X or Y" and so two townland names
have one ref tag. The thing is your script will look for "Lisnakirka or
Milebush" but in OSM it is name=Milebush and alt_name= Lis...
https://www.logainm.ie/35706.aspx



>
> > (B) A name structure variation is valid, "East X" = "X East". We
> > don't have to add every variation but if you come across them, you
> > can add them. The idea is that if someone searches for a townland,
> > we want them to find it no matter what variation they use. The
> > example above is trivial for search but something like Inishmore
> > Vs. Inish More. Also consider, Upper/Lower, Island, More/Beg
> > Oughter/Eighter etc.
>
> The logainm script is aware of North/South/Upper/etc and will try to
> match based on that. It is able to tell that "X Upper" in Logainm is
> the same as "Upper X" in OSM (and vice versa etc).
>
> A few of these will be added to the logainm match up. I wasn't aware
> of them:


 My Irish is unfortunately terrible but
Oughter (butchered irish) = uachtar (Irish) = Upper or Southern (English)
Eighter = Íochtar = Lower or Northern

It confusses me why it is Lower or Northern (North is up right!! :) ) but I
think it might be lower in elevation possibly? I doubt it. Upper Bavaria is
the south because it rises to the alps.  More interestingly, up might be to
the south? you go up towards Rome in Irish?? More More interestingly, I
hear that Irish is one of those languages that has an in-built sense of
direction, you wouldn't say move over to the left, you would say move
east or something like that. I am not sure about it. Anyway, back to
the map.



>

> (C) Missing spaces can be valid names. e.g. Inishdeashmore =
> > Inishdeash-more = Inishdeash More
> >
> > (E) X Deme(ns)e and X Deme(sn)e. I suggest sticking to Deme(sn)e as
> > this is what is on the map source. (H) Apostrophes in names. I'm
> > getting a bit too in-depth here but I
> might
> > as well mention it. The old maps do not contain apostrophes in
> > names. "Georges Island", "Abbots Island". Some name tags are now
> > "George's
> Island"
> > etc. I suggest to keep "Georges Island" as an alt_name in this
> > case.
>
>
> > (G) Some townlands are named "Part of X" or "X (part of)". This
> > means it is a separate part of a nearby townland. Usually, you will
> > find an "X" townland nearby, that was split. I suggest we write the
> > name of these as "X (part of)".
>
> Are you sure about this? That would make 2 townlands, called "X" and
> "X (part of)". I thought if the map has a "X part of" displayed that
> it meant that little part was an exclave of the larger X townland, and
> I've been mapping them as such.
>

I agree with you that it should be mapped as an exclave. I have not seen
any like that so that's why I suggested to have two townlands.
If everyone is happy with it, I will also map the "part of" exclave with
the "X" townland. I will also amend my comments above when I put it up in a
wiki.

Thanks for the feedback!




> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYpwntAAoJEOrWdmeZivv2FxoH/1GHOBmoLUMtsKQanmc9OhJC
> tYA1R/nLYXxenl7N3CXWxpFfpRrADb+G7SRZ6FC3YwABNOFudb3/4/QUh9T2zY00
> NICTF7gmp8k378zVr2RxreOxXb0Qz4kXCfg+4H8NzAuxgsfEihliegGmRYm+/A6e
> 2glvvD+8GAoQ9zZvJdqXkdtZvB5BtV213jiTDYRoXWVX9r8TlqI9OPULL1FQtii4
> LfP1s4oWKF5ma3Dip3VgyUvOCKWW/JaD5EGOZtT4uW8TnBKxEtWS/ahvoKInjyj6
> gSWGJOW1tVorHur8B/HXK/poAbPy91M2ttS5d2IhGQyr5nOe8l25Fhm+uaGvkJ8=
> =drU2
> -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

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Typos in Townland names

[Brian Tuffy]

e want them to find it no
matter what variation they use. The example above is trivial for search but
something like Inishmore Vs. Inish More.
Also consider, Upper/Lower, Island, More/Beg Oughter/Eighter etc.

(C) Missing spaces can be valid names. e.g. Inishdeashmore =
Inishdeash-more = Inishdeash More

(D) Island's have on island name= tag (place = islet) and the townland of
an island has a name= tag too (place = locality). These should match but
sometimes differ. e.g. Cullenmore island (Islet/island) and Collan More
(Townland).

(E) X Deme(ns)e and X Deme(sn)e. I suggest sticking to Deme(sn)e as this is
what is on the map source.

(F) Identical townland names are common, many appear beside each other
(without north/south upper/lower etc.). check the source to see if they
should have a secondary name in brackets after them. For example,
"Dookinelly (Calvy)" and  "Dookinelly (Thulis)". Sometimes names in
brackets after a townland indicate which civil parish it belongs to, but
not always.

(G) Some townlands are named "Part of X" or "X (part of)". This means it is
a separate part of a nearby townland. Usually, you will find an "X"
townland nearby, that was split.
I suggest we write the name of these as "X (part of)".

(H) Apostrophes in names. I'm getting a bit too in-depth here but I might
as well mention it. The old maps do not contain apostrophes in names.
"Georges Island", "Abbots Island". Some name tags are now "George's Island"
etc. I suggest to keep "Georges Island" as an alt_name in this case.




Sorry for the long email, I will try to put this into a wiki or something.
Please check over my list and see if you can identify a spelling that
should not be overwritten.
More importantly, any suggestions on the above text are also a good idea.

Brian T
OscarBrownbread




On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Brian Tuffy <brian.tu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
> I found a lot of typos in townland names in county Mayo and i presume it
> is similar in other counties. As of 12.01.2017, About 4.3% of townlands in
> Mayo have a mistake in the spelling. That is roughly 130 townland names
> just for Mayo! I think that is something important we can correct now that
> the hard work of mapping the townlands is done.
>
> Before, I was correcting them as I came across them but I think a more
> systematic approach is needed to double check names and also why i want the
> community to help, share ideas on how to do it and check each others work.
> It is understandable that mistakes were made since it is sometimes
> difficult to read the GSGS30906 war maps source. So what I am talking about
> here, is spelling mistakes in copying the townland names from the source.
>
> So here are my questions;
> How do we go about cross-checking the names of townlands (also parishes,
> DED's etc)?
> What sources can we use? 1911 census list of townlands? the war maps can
> still be the original source of townland names. Can we legally use the data
> on pobal.ie to cross-check spelling? Although unlikely, can we even
> extract the other data there (townland id)? Is that useful ?
>
> Are you interested in checking the names in your county?
>
> Here I propose my way of checking townland names:
> The principle was to compare the OSM list of townlands to other lists and
> identify if the names match or are unique entries. The unique entries are
> possible mistakes.
> I downloaded the townland list for Mayo from townlands.ie and I am
> currently trying to compare the list to other sources. I have the draft
> list of townlands in Mayo from Loganim.ie and a townlands list from
> pobal.ie (possibly copyrighted list ). Anyway, once the possible mistakes
> are highlighted, (Excel - conditional formatting) we can go back to the war
> maps source and check the correct spelling. It takes a lot of work, i.e.
> formatting, false positives, we have to respect local names of townlands
> etc.
>
> Besides typos, this method can also be used to add the irish names of
> townlands, identify missing townlands not yet added and much more.
>
> Please let me know what you think. My corrections for Co. Mayo are nearly
> complete and I plan to upload them soon.
> Ok, Thanks for reading,
>
> Brian
> Username: OscarBrownbread
>
>
>
>
>
___
Talk-ie mailing list
Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Typos in Townland names

[Brian Tuffy]

Thanks for the OSM OSI comparison map, this is great for showing up
mistakes in the townland boundaries and I even found a missing townland or
two.
This umap seems pretty cool too. I notice that many townlands without
logainm tags are because of the typos. Fixing those should allow the script
to do its thing. I can see a CP with a typo in it's name and because of
that, none of the townlands in it have logainm tags yet.

I have a question about the logainm script, How can it handle a barony that
crosses a county border? For example, Barony of Ross crosses the
Galway-Mayo border as one relation. This relation has one logainm tag for
Ross in Mayo (logainm:ref = 172) but there are separate loganim ref numbers
for Ross in Galway (logainm:ref = 85) on the logainm website. Can we
somehow add both ref numbers to the Barony relation? something like
logainm:ref=172;85, or what do you suggest? It seems that the script
assumes everything is nested inside counties but if baronies/civil parishes
cross county borders, then they have two logainm ref numbers.

https://www.logainm.ie/en/85   Galway
https://www.logainm.ie/en/172 Mayo
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4128697




On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Mark Tully  wrote:

> I believe it doesn't work over https because overpass.openstreetmap.ie
> (which is being used for the querying) doesn't support https, though I'm
> open to correction on that.  The overpass-api.de server does support it,
> but I've found it to be a little slower for this map.
>
> Mark
>
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 at 15:55 Rory McCann  wrote:
>
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On 16/02/17 16:40, Mark Tully wrote:
> > > There is also a umap at
> > > http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/townlands-missing-logainm-data_838
> > 33
> > >
> > >
> > which displays townlands without a logainm:ref tag.  This might be usefu
> > l
> > > in helping to locate townlands with typos.  Bear in mind that it
> > > only displays data above zoom 11 (to try to reduce browser
> > > slowdowns).
> > >
> > > Mark
> >
> > That's pretty cool! I've done overpass queries to find CPs/etc which
> > don't have a logainm:ref, but not umap like that.
> >
> > Yes you can add/change the name tag on OSM, but if you manage to find
> > the townland on logainm, you can directly add the logainm:ref tag
> > yourself.
> >
> > The loganm match up code looks at counties, then baronies, then civil
> > parishes, then townlands. So if it cannot match up a CP in OSM with
> > Logainm, it's not able to match up any of those townlands in the CP.
> > It's look at the name, but if there's a logainm:ref, it'll use that
> > instead.
> >
> > If you add logainm:ref tags to civil parishes, then it might be able
> > to add logainm details to more townlands.
> >
> > (BTW it doesn't work over https, and if you have the HTTPS Everywhere
> > extension like I do :) )
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> > Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
> >
> > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYpctKAAoJEOrWdmeZivv2ImAH/1xnRM+3wm0/pGuZ5osbajjD
> > GmH7j9Derka6VShOktDBhPAllYoKbfaz/5E/Zxnuix5AiuMZvTcMq9AWtYHktlU2
> > YfCdPMgrr7qmCxuz3uiVyY7DxsFeFiGnqGPCGythLDImAa8zprPGCzTfrJkv8fSa
> > 2QXkcXYXfpHOotZeh8scG9nzUhw6goDfh3TeA0FY2HAmrNR+l9AKaKe1yzsiGkUm
> > rKrB2z6yf+pibIhtOp4iBal76tPfhxhGTUe56ve0qQ5sgJ4ytuElwgRb2WlPOFfc
> > HyWnq6Ye/iPDn/+x0bcq0jpYh59cZbEPQ1NGUZvoEiMKuTUGcrY0av1IM878iUs=
> > =hmDW
> > -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
>
___
Talk-ie mailing list
Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Typos in Townland names

[Brian Tuffy]

Hi Colm,
Thanks for your addition, every little helps!
I agree with you that we must not assume that the mistake is always in the
OSM entry. Often the entry in OSM is of greater value, even if it does not
match any official names, for example, I have added the local name of a
townland "Guesdian"  I know this is the name everyone uses and it is the
name on the townland marker-stone in the area. However the official name is
"Geesadan" and there are alternative names such as "Gweeshadan" all for the
same place. So we have to be very careful correcting names!
I recommend to use local_name= and alt_name= tags where possible. We can
check the version history of a townland relation (version #) and if the
name does not change since it was first added, then I can assume that a
local name was not added. The typos occurred when copying the name from the
maps because they are hard to read. I think 4.3% error in names is actually
impressively low.

The obvious way to identify a typo is to check if any of the names in the
relation exactly match the original townlands map source. Those names
should be present in some form, possible alt_name or something.
http://maps.openstreetmap.ie/  and click mapwrapper GSGS3906

Cheers,
Brian T




On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Colm Moore  wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> I corrected at least one - Kiltalown in Dublin-  after checking with Rory:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4513764
>
>
> However, in dealing with 60,000+ names, we need to be careful and not
> assume that all the mistakes are in the OSM data entry - it may be that
> there are errors in other sources, e.g. "Little Island" in Cork shows up
> some older Ordnance Survey maps as "LITTLEISLAND", which is somewhat
> obviously incorrectly spaced:
>
>
> http://maps.osi.ie/publicviewer/#V2,575522,571859,9,8
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6514445
>
>
> Colm
>
>
> 
> ---
> Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can
> change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead
> ___
> 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

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Typos in Townland names

[Brian Tuffy]

just to follow up on my own post, another way to tackle this is to take a
look at Rory's Loganim import page on townlands.ie which I highly recommend
you take a look at.
https://www.townlands.ie/static/logainm/

Each red x on these pages means that the loganim irish names tags are not
in OSM for that place.
As far as I know, they were automatically added for the places where the
names in Loganim list matched those in OSM (or at least id's matched?). So
a red x can indicate that there is a spelling mismatch or the place is
missing.
It's a good place to start if you want to correct typo's in place names.

Brian T


On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Brian Tuffy <brian.tu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
> I found a lot of typos in townland names in county Mayo and i presume it
> is similar in other counties. As of 12.01.2017, About 4.3% of townlands in
> Mayo have a mistake in the spelling. That is roughly 130 townland names
> just for Mayo! I think that is something important we can correct now that
> the hard work of mapping the townlands is done.
>
> Before, I was correcting them as I came across them but I think a more
> systematic approach is needed to double check names and also why i want the
> community to help, share ideas on how to do it and check each others work.
> It is understandable that mistakes were made since it is sometimes
> difficult to read the GSGS30906 war maps source. So what I am talking about
> here, is spelling mistakes in copying the townland names from the source.
>
> So here are my questions;
> How do we go about cross-checking the names of townlands (also parishes,
> DED's etc)?
> What sources can we use? 1911 census list of townlands? the war maps can
> still be the original source of townland names. Can we legally use the data
> on pobal.ie to cross-check spelling? Although unlikely, can we even
> extract the other data there (townland id)? Is that useful ?
>
> Are you interested in checking the names in your county?
>
> Here I propose my way of checking townland names:
> The principle was to compare the OSM list of townlands to other lists and
> identify if the names match or are unique entries. The unique entries are
> possible mistakes.
> I downloaded the townland list for Mayo from townlands.ie and I am
> currently trying to compare the list to other sources. I have the draft
> list of townlands in Mayo from Loganim.ie and a townlands list from
> pobal.ie (possibly copyrighted list ). Anyway, once the possible mistakes
> are highlighted, (Excel - conditional formatting) we can go back to the war
> maps source and check the correct spelling. It takes a lot of work, i.e.
> formatting, false positives, we have to respect local names of townlands
> etc.
>
> Besides typos, this method can also be used to add the irish names of
> townlands, identify missing townlands not yet added and much more.
>
> Please let me know what you think. My corrections for Co. Mayo are nearly
> complete and I plan to upload them soon.
> Ok, Thanks for reading,
>
> Brian
> Username: OscarBrownbread
>
>
>
>
>
___
Talk-ie mailing list
Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie

[OSM-talk-ie] Typos in Townland names

[Brian Tuffy]

Hi all,
I found a lot of typos in townland names in county Mayo and i presume it is
similar in other counties. As of 12.01.2017, About 4.3% of townlands in
Mayo have a mistake in the spelling. That is roughly 130 townland names
just for Mayo! I think that is something important we can correct now that
the hard work of mapping the townlands is done.

Before, I was correcting them as I came across them but I think a more
systematic approach is needed to double check names and also why i want the
community to help, share ideas on how to do it and check each others work.
It is understandable that mistakes were made since it is sometimes
difficult to read the GSGS30906 war maps source. So what I am talking about
here, is spelling mistakes in copying the townland names from the source.

So here are my questions;
How do we go about cross-checking the names of townlands (also parishes,
DED's etc)?
What sources can we use? 1911 census list of townlands? the war maps can
still be the original source of townland names. Can we legally use the data
on pobal.ie to cross-check spelling? Although unlikely, can we even extract
the other data there (townland id)? Is that useful ?

Are you interested in checking the names in your county?

Here I propose my way of checking townland names:
The principle was to compare the OSM list of townlands to other lists and
identify if the names match or are unique entries. The unique entries are
possible mistakes.
I downloaded the townland list for Mayo from townlands.ie and I am
currently trying to compare the list to other sources. I have the draft
list of townlands in Mayo from Loganim.ie and a townlands list from pobal.ie
(possibly copyrighted list ). Anyway, once the possible mistakes are
highlighted, (Excel - conditional formatting) we can go back to the war
maps source and check the correct spelling. It takes a lot of work, i.e.
formatting, false positives, we have to respect local names of townlands
etc.

Besides typos, this method can also be used to add the irish names of
townlands, identify missing townlands not yet added and much more.

Please let me know what you think. My corrections for Co. Mayo are nearly
complete and I plan to upload them soon.
Ok, Thanks for reading,

Brian
Username: OscarBrownbread
___
Talk-ie mailing list
Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Can Townlands be split for Civil parishes and barony boundries?

[Brian Tuffy]

Hi Mark,
Thanks for your feedback, I have made most of the changes that I mentioned
in my email but I didn't split any townlands (yet). It's a good point that
I don't need to split a townland border just because a parish or barony
border runs through it. As long as I assume that townlands do not add up to
parishes, then townlands can overlap two different parishes. (i.e. we can
run a parish border through the middle or a townland). I suppose this is ok
then. The townland "Lugaphuill" then is just oddly shaped as you say.

Can someone confirm that townlands do not necessarily add up to civil
parishes?

Well if we don't split townlands: Below is an example of where
"Druminracahill" townland IS split in two parts in OSM due to a civil
parish boundary. So should this very small split townland part be merged
with it's big brother?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/799934#map=18/53.83127/-9.26316=N

All all best,
Brian


On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Mark Tully <markjtu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Brian,
>
> My own opinion would be that townlands shouldn't be split in OSM and if
> they overlap parishes, then it's up to the software using the OSM data to
> figure out how to handle them.
>
> As far as I understand it, townlands don't necessarily add up to civil
> parishes, civil parishes don't necessarily add up to baronies and baronies
> don't necessarily add up to counties.  Furthermore, townlands don't
> necessarily add up to electoral divisions.  In rural areas, the GSGS3906
> map splits the townland into 2 pieces (e.g. Agall (ED Derrycoooly) and
> Agall (ED Screggan) at
> http://maps.openstreetmap.ie/?zoom=16=53.26048=-7.
> 59323=B00T,
> but in urban areas, it doesn't, it just cuts the ED (and town) boundary
> through the townland e.g.
> http://maps.openstreetmap.ie/?zoom=15=52.80303=-6.
> 73163=B00T.
> Make of that what you will!
>
> Regarding some of your specific issues:
> 3: I've come across several areas with CPs covering 2 non adjoining areas
> so this doesn't look that unusual e.g.:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4280429
> 4: I think it's just awkwardly shaped.  Not sure if there's a boundary at
> the narrow part or not on
> http://maps.openstreetmap.ie/?zoom=16=53.8103=-9.
> 2563=B00T,
> but I don't see the name for the second townland on the GSGS3906 map if it
> is.
>
> Bear in mind that this is all just my own opinion and others may disagree.
>
> Hope this helps,
> Mark
>
> On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 at 22:05 Brian Tuffy <brian.tu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > I'm fairly new to OSM, I map under the username OscarBrownbread.
> > I have been mapping Castlebar and Co. Mayo. Recently I have been looking
> > more at townlands
> >
> > I have found many spelling errors in townland names (approx 10) in my
> > locality. Cross referencing them with the loganim data helped correct
> them.
> > Anyway, I now see many other challenges, I see many townlands that look
> > like they should be split. This is usually because of civil parishes
> (CPs)
> > or baronies going through them.
> >
> > Here are some of the issues I have come across in my area.
> > (0) townland spelling mistakes due to hard-to-read or missing letters in
> > the Brittish War Maps source
> > (1) Civil parish "Balla" missing
> > (2) CP "Mayo" is split into two parts, "Mayo (clanmorris portion)" and
> > "Mayo (kilmaine portion)" due to different baronies
> > (3) townland "Brownhall Demense" belonging to CP "Mayo" disconnected from
> > the rest of the CP (disconnected by the CP Balla which we still need to
> add
> > to OSM). This forms two closed ways in the boundary relation instead of
> > one.
> > (4) townland "Lugaphuill" really looks like it should be split in two
> > separate townlands with the same name that border eachother, but it is
> > currently one big townland in OSM. Now the name label (centroid) is in
> > another townland.
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/53.8103/-9.2563=N
> >
> > Ok, So I am Not looking for advice on how to solve each issue, that I can
> > try myself as I go forward. If you are curious, you can check out my OSM
> > map notes here.
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/799945#map=13/53.7623/-9.1082=N
> .
> > But, I do need to know how to split townlands,
> >
> > My question is, Should we split townlands to make parish/barony borders
> > more accurate?
> > This results in townlands with the exact same name bordering eachother.
> > Wouldn't this result in confusion for search engines, programming
> database
>

[OSM-talk-ie] Can Townlands be split for Civil parishes and barony boundries?

[Brian Tuffy]

Hi all,
I'm fairly new to OSM, I map under the username OscarBrownbread.
I have been mapping Castlebar and Co. Mayo. Recently I have been looking
more at townlands

I have found many spelling errors in townland names (approx 10) in my
locality. Cross referencing them with the loganim data helped correct them.
Anyway, I now see many other challenges, I see many townlands that look
like they should be split. This is usually because of civil parishes (CPs)
or baronies going through them.

Here are some of the issues I have come across in my area.
(0) townland spelling mistakes due to hard-to-read or missing letters in
the Brittish War Maps source
(1) Civil parish "Balla" missing
(2) CP "Mayo" is split into two parts, "Mayo (clanmorris portion)" and
"Mayo (kilmaine portion)" due to different baronies
(3) townland "Brownhall Demense" belonging to CP "Mayo" disconnected from
the rest of the CP (disconnected by the CP Balla which we still need to add
to OSM). This forms two closed ways in the boundary relation instead of one.
(4) townland "Lugaphuill" really looks like it should be split in two
separate townlands with the same name that border eachother, but it is
currently one big townland in OSM. Now the name label (centroid) is in
another townland.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/53.8103/-9.2563=N

Ok, So I am Not looking for advice on how to solve each issue, that I can
try myself as I go forward. If you are curious, you can check out my OSM
map notes here.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/799945#map=13/53.7623/-9.1082=N.
But, I do need to know how to split townlands,

My question is, Should we split townlands to make parish/barony borders
more accurate?
This results in townlands with the exact same name bordering eachother.
Wouldn't this result in confusion for search engines, programming database
etc. ?? Is it even possible to handle this?
If we do split them (as it is shown on the more recent maps), should we
name them differently? e.g. ballytown #1, ballytown #2 ?
Possibly, name= ballytown, name_official=ballytown#1 or something like that?
I suppose we should rename but Townland names from the maps already contain
"north" "south" "east" "upper" "lower" etc. (BTW, anyone know why "upper"
is always to the south??)

Whatever we do, I don't think we should do anything logical or sensible,
that would not be in the spirit of mapping townlands ha ha ;p
(Jasus... I just came across "Buncam North" and below it, "Buncam East"
where the hell is Buncam south?? Ahhh  ok.)

If I understand correctly:
(a) Townlands add up to parishes (so they should not overlap eachother),
yes or no?
(b) parishes and baronies are independent and can overlap eachother. yes or
no?

Thanks for those who have read my rant this far, I hope this can help new
mappers.
I understand that electorial districts (EDs) are more official but I hope I
can better understand how to proceed with splitting townlands and naming
townlands.

Finally, I love our old townlands and I only want to help make them
accurate and available for all. Down with Eircodes, up with Townlands!! he
he

All the best,
Brian
___
Talk-ie mailing list
Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie