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

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,

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

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) ___

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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 That they still exist as historical documents is not a viable argument.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

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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] boundary mania

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

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

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

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

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,

Re: [Talk-GB] boundary mania

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

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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] boundary mania

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

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

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

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

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?

[Talk-GB] Mapping horse steps?

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.

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] boundary mania

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

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

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 >

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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] boundary mania

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

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

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

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

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. > >

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

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

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

*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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

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