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

2018-09-23 Thread Dave F

On 22/09/2018 14:46, Martin Wynne wrote:
Great. Let them consider themselves so. It has little to do with OSM 
& nothing to do with this specific subject.


OSM mappers spend many hours of their free time adding stuff to OSM 
because it interests them and in the hope that others may find it 
useful. Simply because they enjoy doing it as a hobby interest, for no 
reward.


If you are going to get so stroppy about everything, they may just 
find that they have something better to do on a saturday afternoon.


Ad hominem. Disappointing.
However, if advocating adherence to one of OSM's major rules, then yes, 
I'm "stroppy".



OSM requires contributors who add quality data, not something just 
because they feel some disparate emotional attachment to it.




OSM needs its mappers and is not going to be helped by driving them 
away with a lot of fusspot rules and regulations, which no-one can 
agree on anyway.


An agreement has been made. Pretending it doesn't exist just to suit 
your ends is not a strong argument.






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

2018-09-22 Thread Martin Wynne
Great. Let them consider themselves so. It has little to do with OSM & 
nothing to do with this specific subject.


OSM mappers spend many hours of their free time adding stuff to OSM 
because it interests them and in the hope that others may find it 
useful. Simply because they enjoy doing it as a hobby interest, for no 
reward.


If you are going to get so stroppy about everything, they may just find 
that they have something better to do on a saturday afternoon.


OSM needs its mappers and is not going to be helped by driving them away 
with a lot of fusspot rules and regulations, which no-one can agree on 
anyway.


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

2018-09-22 Thread Dave F

On 20/09/2018 18:37, Adam Snape wrote:

Hi,

If these boundaries were purely of historical interest I doubt that 
you'd find many experienced contributors arguing for their inclusion 
in OSM. The argument is that these areas retain a continued cultural 
geographic relevance.


No, they don't. They have relevance to the past.

People with no particularinterest in history can and do still consider 
themselves as living in (for eg.) Wigan, Lancashire or Dentdale, 
Yorkshire (administratively in the Yorkshire Dales but not Yorkshire - 
how ridiculous!).


Great. Let them consider themselves so. It has little to do with OSM & 
nothing to do with this specific subject.




To me the best comparison is with loc_name and old_name, tags in which 
we appreciate the significance of older or alternate names for areas 
where they retain some current significance.


You disproved your own argument - old_name is used on current, still 
existing entities.




Btw, I'm surprised that we've got this far without mention (unless 
I've missed it) the Government's position on this issue, namely that 
despite ceasing to have administrative function, the traditional 
counties continue to exist and form an important part of of local 
identities: 
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/eric-pickles-celebrate-st-george-and-englands-traditional-counties


I'm sorry, but this is just descending into barrel scraping 
whataboutery. The views of a political point scoring MP is irrelevant to 
OSM decisions


Cheers
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

2018-09-20 Thread Lester Caine

On 20/09/2018 19:44, Mark Goodge wrote:

Then get involved and put it in OHM.
I was involved, but the current OHM development is not going in a way 
that works well with OSM so I gave up. I'd rather mirror OSM directly 
and add my historic material to that local copy! Which is what I'm doing 
currently ...


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - https://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - https://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
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

2018-09-20 Thread Mark Goodge



On 20/09/2018 18:16, Lester Caine wrote:

On 20/09/2018 17:50, Mark Goodge wrote:
In fact, putting them in OSM isn't just damaging to OSM, it's damaging 
to OHM. At the moment, OHM is a bit sparse, there are some well-mapped 
areas but there are some pretty big blank areas. What it really needs 
is a group of enthusiastic contributors, who are knowledgeable about 
history and want to see it mapped. Putting the historic counties into 
OHM would be a huge boost for it, it would make OHM much more useful 
for genealogists, fans of listed buildings, ancient monuments, old 
railways, etc. And there are plenty of those. That in turn would drive 
more users of OHM, and more contributors, thus helping to make it even 
more useful.


Until OHM has all of the current history available in parallel with 
'extra' data it's not worth spending any time on. I want to see where 
historic changes fit around the current state on the ground so I work 
off OSM ... and will until all that data is available in OHM ...


Then get involved and put it in OHM.

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

2018-09-20 Thread Richard Fairhurst
Stuart Reynolds wrote:
> I propose that we refer this to the OSM UK Directors and ask 
> them to review the arguments for both sides and come to a 
> firm decision. That’s what we elected them for, after all. Then 
> they publish it, and that is what we all agree to accept, 
> whether it matches our personal views or not.

Whoa. Nope.

There is no precedent in OSM for local chapters dictating what can be mapped
in a country. None. The Local Chapters agreement
(https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Local_Chapters/Template_agreement)
doesn't admit any such possibility.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html

___
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

2018-09-20 Thread Adam Snape
Hi,

If these boundaries were purely of historical interest I doubt that you'd
find many experienced contributors arguing for their inclusion in OSM. The
argument is that these areas retain a continued cultural geographic
relevance. People with no particularinterest in history can and do still
consider themselves as living in (for eg.) Wigan, Lancashire or Dentdale,
Yorkshire (administratively in the Yorkshire Dales but not Yorkshire - how
ridiculous!).

To me the best comparison is with loc_name and old_name, tags in which we
appreciate the significance of older or alternate names for areas where
they retain some current significance.

Btw, I'm surprised that we've got this far without mention (unless I've
missed it) the Government's position on this issue, namely that despite
ceasing to have administrative function, the traditional counties continue
to exist and form an important part of of local identities:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/eric-pickles-celebrate-st-george-and-englands-traditional-counties

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

2018-09-20 Thread Lester Caine

On 20/09/2018 17:50, Mark Goodge wrote:
In fact, putting them in OSM isn't just damaging to OSM, it's damaging 
to OHM. At the moment, OHM is a bit sparse, there are some well-mapped 
areas but there are some pretty big blank areas. What it really needs is 
a group of enthusiastic contributors, who are knowledgeable about 
history and want to see it mapped. Putting the historic counties into 
OHM would be a huge boost for it, it would make OHM much more useful for 
genealogists, fans of listed buildings, ancient monuments, old railways, 
etc. And there are plenty of those. That in turn would drive more users 
of OHM, and more contributors, thus helping to make it even more useful.


Until OHM has all of the current history available in parallel with 
'extra' data it's not worth spending any time on. I want to see where 
historic changes fit around the current state on the ground so I work 
off OSM ... and will until all that data is available in OHM ...


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - https://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - https://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
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

2018-09-20 Thread Mark Goodge



On 20/09/2018 16:37, Dan S wrote:

Op do 20 sep. 2018 om 16:31 schreef Mark Goodge :





However, historic administrative boundaries, by definition, are not
current. They're not an edge case. They are completely outside the
realms of what is current.


Your "by definition" seems to be about "historical", not "historic" (a
distinction which already came up somewhere else in this thread).
Historical things are in the past; historic things were important in
the past, and might or might not still exist. I'm sure that seems
pedantic and I'm sorry, but it seems almost to be the crux of the
matter.


Administrative boundaries cease to be current when they are changed or 
deleted by whichever organisation has the authority to change them.


The debate around the historic counties is not about whether or not 
their boundaries are still current. They are not. That is indisputable. 
The debate is about whether they are still *important*, to the extent 
that justifies mapping them in OSM even though they have no current 
legal or administrative significance.


Now, I do agree that the mid Victorian county boundaries (which are the 
ones generally accepted as the boundaries of the historic counties, 
although there are other definitions) are important for a number of 
things. They matter for a lot of historical research, particularly 
genealogy and architecture. So having them readily available in data, 
and viewable on a map, is valuable.


However, that function is precisely what OHM is designed for. It isn't 
what OSM is designed for. So the historic county boundaries more 
correctly belong in OHM rather than OSM.


In fact, putting them in OSM isn't just damaging to OSM, it's damaging 
to OHM. At the moment, OHM is a bit sparse, there are some well-mapped 
areas but there are some pretty big blank areas. What it really needs is 
a group of enthusiastic contributors, who are knowledgeable about 
history and want to see it mapped. Putting the historic counties into 
OHM would be a huge boost for it, it would make OHM much more useful for 
genealogists, fans of listed buildings, ancient monuments, old railways, 
etc. And there are plenty of those. That in turn would drive more users 
of OHM, and more contributors, thus helping to make it even more useful.


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

2018-09-20 Thread Dan S
Op do 20 sep. 2018 om 16:31 schreef Mark Goodge :
>
>
>
> On 20/09/2018 13:46, Martin Wynne wrote:
> > On 20/09/2018 13:12, Dave F wrote:
> >> See the OSM Welcome page.
> >
> > Thanks. The wording there is:
> >
> > "OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both real and
> > current."
> >
> > Unfortunately it doesn't define "real" or "current".
>
> No, it leaves those to the ordinary, everyday meanings of the words.
>
> > What is a "real" bus stop? Does it need a physical marker post or
> > shelter? Or is it a bus stop if it's just a place listed in the
> > timetable? Or even just a place where buses often stop on request?
> >
> > What is a "current" footpath? If I mapped it 5 years ago, how often do I
> > have to go back and check that it is still there? If it's a public
> > footpath crossing a field the farmer is allowed 14 days to re-instate it
> > after ploughing the field. Is it still a "real" footpath for those 14
> > days? What if I re-visit it on the wrong day?
>
> There are, obviously, edge cases where a decision has to be made on the
> particular circumstances. Trying to define things too tightly creates
> unwanted inconsistencies.
>
> However, historic administrative boundaries, by definition, are not
> current. They're not an edge case. They are completely outside the
> realms of what is current.

Your "by definition" seems to be about "historical", not "historic" (a
distinction which already came up somewhere else in this thread).
Historical things are in the past; historic things were important in
the past, and might or might not still exist. I'm sure that seems
pedantic and I'm sorry, but it seems almost to be the crux of the
matter.

Best
Dan

___
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

2018-09-20 Thread Mark Goodge



On 20/09/2018 13:46, Martin Wynne wrote:

On 20/09/2018 13:12, Dave F wrote:

See the OSM Welcome page.


Thanks. The wording there is:

"OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both real and 
current."


Unfortunately it doesn't define "real" or "current".


No, it leaves those to the ordinary, everyday meanings of the words.

What is a "real" bus stop? Does it need a physical marker post or 
shelter? Or is it a bus stop if it's just a place listed in the 
timetable? Or even just a place where buses often stop on request?


What is a "current" footpath? If I mapped it 5 years ago, how often do I 
have to go back and check that it is still there? If it's a public 
footpath crossing a field the farmer is allowed 14 days to re-instate it 
after ploughing the field. Is it still a "real" footpath for those 14 
days? What if I re-visit it on the wrong day?


There are, obviously, edge cases where a decision has to be made on the 
particular circumstances. Trying to define things too tightly creates 
unwanted inconsistencies.


However, historic administrative boundaries, by definition, are not 
current. They're not an edge case. They are completely outside the 
realms of what is current.


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

2018-09-20 Thread Ed Loach
Stuart wrote:

> I propose that we refer this to the OSM UK Directors and ask them
> to review the arguments for both sides and come to a firm decision.
> That’s what we elected them for, after all. 

I didn't. I thought OSM UK was to promote OSM in the UK, not decide what we can 
and can't map.

Ed


___
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

2018-09-20 Thread Stuart Reynolds
I’m all for debate and coming to a consensus, but my message counter has got to 
108 mails in this thread, and I have to say that from where I am sitting it’s 
all becoming rather tedious. The same arguments (albeit polite) are being 
rehashed, nothing new is being said, and no-one is showing any sign of changing 
their mind. We don’t have a consensus, and in any case there are only around 25 
people contributing, out of however many UK mappers, which is hardly 
representative. 

I propose that we refer this to the OSM UK Directors and ask them to review the 
arguments for both sides and come to a firm decision. That’s what we elected 
them for, after all. Then they publish it, and that is what we all agree to 
accept, whether it matches our personal views or not.

If we don’t, this thread will just rumble on forever and, at worst, we will get 
into a tit-for-tat set of edits and reversions/deletions, which no-one wants.

Regards,
Stuart


> On 20 Sep 2018, at 14:37, Dave F  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 19/09/2018 23:01, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>> Frederik Ramm wrote:
>>  It still is one today.
> 
> So there's no problem, then.
> 
>> So:
>> 
>> Historic counties can and often do represent genuine, attested, useful
>> geographic information. If you're proposing to delete them, you need to come
>> up with a solution that will retain that information.
> 
> For the nth time - OHM.
> 
>> if people went out and did mapping, rather than staying at home and doing
>> deleting.
> These two are not mutually exclusive. When a building is razed & replaced 
> with a new one do you retain the existing?
> 
> Cheers
> DaveF
> 
> ___
> 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

2018-09-20 Thread Dave F



On 19/09/2018 23:01, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

Frederik Ramm wrote:
  It still is one today.


So there's no problem, then.


So:

Historic counties can and often do represent genuine, attested, useful
geographic information. If you're proposing to delete them, you need to come
up with a solution that will retain that information.


For the nth time - OHM.


if people went out and did mapping, rather than staying at home and doing
deleting.
These two are not mutually exclusive. When a building is razed & 
replaced with a new one do you retain the existing?


Cheers
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

2018-09-20 Thread Dave F

On 20/09/2018 13:24, Colin Smale wrote:


On 2018-09-20 14:12, Dave F wrote:


See the OSM Welcome page.

Quoting the law does not make a person guilty.


Misunderstanding 'the law' doesn't prove 'innocence'.


If it were that simple these boundaries would have been removed long ago.


Being 'difficult' is not a reason to keep them.


Are you offering to delete these boundaries then?


Unsure of relevance. Either way is, again, not a valid reason to keep them

As far as I can see there is no "decision" in this case yet, just a 
ever-growing collection of opinions.




Once again, please don't assume this is the first discussion on the 
subject. Being unaware of them doesn't invalidate them.


Cheers
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

2018-09-20 Thread Martin Wynne

On 20/09/2018 13:12, Dave F wrote:

See the OSM Welcome page.


Thanks. The wording there is:

"OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both real and 
current."


Unfortunately it doesn't define "real" or "current".

What is a "real" bus stop? Does it need a physical marker post or 
shelter? Or is it a bus stop if it's just a place listed in the 
timetable? Or even just a place where buses often stop on request?


What is a "current" footpath? If I mapped it 5 years ago, how often do I 
have to go back and check that it is still there? If it's a public 
footpath crossing a field the farmer is allowed 14 days to re-instate it 
after ploughing the field. Is it still a "real" footpath for those 14 
days? What if I re-visit it on the wrong day?


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

2018-09-20 Thread Colin Smale
On 2018-09-20 14:12, Dave F wrote:

> See the OSM Welcome page.

Quoting the law does not make a person guilty. If it were that simple
these boundaries would have been removed long ago. 

Are you offering to delete these boundaries then? 

As far as I can see there is no "decision" in this case yet, just a
ever-growing collection of opinions.___
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

2018-09-20 Thread Dave F

See the OSM Welcome page.

On 20/09/2018 13:00, Martin Wynne wrote:
The argument against the historic county boundaries is that they 
can't be verified on the ground.


No, Martyn. It's that they are not current.



Make up your minds!

Previously:

> > On 09/19/2018 06:38 PM, Martin Wynne wrote:
> > I'm puzzled by this insistence that we can map only that which
> > is "current or real".

> Usually people don't say "current or real" but "verifiable on the
> ground". The fundamental idea goes like this: If two mappers disagree
> about a feature, they can simply go there and the conflict can be
> solved immediately.

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

2018-09-20 Thread Dave F

Sure (green tick):
https://www.openstreetmap.org/welcome

On 20/09/2018 12:52, Colin Smale wrote:


On 2018-09-20 13:22, Dave F wrote:


As I noted previously, many discussions have been had & a decision made.


The discussion is clearly ongoing Could you point me to the 
"decision" please?




___
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

2018-09-20 Thread Warin

On 20/09/18 20:53, Martin Wynne wrote:

How can you verify it's the same stream?


I can't.  I've deleted it.

This raises the question of the maximum length of a culvert under a 
road, beyond which it is no longer permissible to map it as such. 
Under a country lane is ok? But under a motorway?


This one is some 470 meters long. It goes under shopping and residential 
areas, some roads and a train line, when (not if) it gets blocked it 
floods the area.

Way: Terrys Creek (447098073)
Fortunately OSM has access to data of where it goes, in the past I would 
think a straight line would have been used between the entry and exit 
points.

The culvert is large ... say 3 meters height and 4 meters wide.



What is a stream? Even if it's the same water, does that make it the 
same stream? Is a pipe a stream?


This one is a stream. It is well known in the area and thus easy to 
verify from local knowledge, topology and the lack of any matching 
features in the area.


And to my mind it is a culvert.

___
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

2018-09-20 Thread SK53
I think Richard as usually eloquently summarised my position. Rutland is
perhaps an extreme example insofar as more-or-less the entire population
objected to the county disappearing. However such cases are not uncommon
across the world: of the top of my head, I can think of the city of
Allegheny being subsumed by Pittsburgh in the early 1900s, and a more
successful municipality which avoided being incorporated into Madison,
Wisconsin in the late 1900s. My twitter feed is full of tweets from OSM
contributor Christian Rogel about the campaign for the French region of
Brittany to be extended to incorporate it's historical capital, Nantes.

A sense of identify associated with place is neither romantic, nor
something which can be determined by administrative diktat. Although
administrative boundaries can have unexpected consequences: in the modern
day, some youth gangs use post code districts as boundaries. Whereas I
would expect many people to be able to identify the historical/traditional
county in which they live, I'd very surprised if they even know a
ceremonial county exists at all (unless they were angling for a Deputy Lord
Lieutenantship). Furthermore, whereas there is abundant evidence to help
identify the rough boundaries of the former, I suspect there is not one
iota of on the ground evidence for the latter.

As others have said there are numerous non-governmental bodies whose work
is largely constrained by the traditional county boundaries. Sporting
groups such as the teams in the Surrey Cross-country League (some such as
Herne Hill Harriers within the 1889 county of London) allow a reasonable
reconstruction of the original county boundaries. County level associations
exist for many sports and maintain, for the most part, these traditional
boundaries. Similar things happen with groups such as local history
societies (the Thoroton Society
 for
Nottinghamshire). I happen to sit on the committee of the Derbyshire &
Nottinghamshire Entomological Society, which, guess what, is devoted to the
study of insects in these two traditional counties. The reason for this
adherence to the old counties is that many of the organisations came into
existence in the decades around 1900. Furthermore, bitter experience shows
that trying to shadow the administrative structure is a recipe for
continual change and lack of continuity (look at the original planned
titles of the Buildings of Scotland & Wales: all based on admin units which
have largely ceased to exist, and will have no meaning to people in 20
years time).

At this point I should be clear I am not advocating whether these
boundaries should be in OSM or not. I am advocating that it is not the role
of OSM to be a mere slave of administrative whims which don't reflect the
lived experience of ordinary people Surely this is the essence of what OSM
should be about: the opportunity to represent more than just the 'official'
view of the world. In 1950 such a viewpoint would have meant reverting
anyone who added "name:cy" tags.

Lastly on consensus. We clearly don't have it on this issue, nor
necessarily on what truly meets an on-the-ground rule for boundaries.
Instead of arguing about the points we don't agree about, consensus is
better built by adumbrating the things which we believe in common, and
agreeing on which specific points there are differences. As we all should
know by now voting may not solve anything.

Jerry

On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 at 07:25, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Richard,
>
> On 20.09.2018 00:01, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> > From 1974 to 1997, the county of Rutland didn't exist.
>
> It's nice to see such a passionate plea for one particular historic
> boundary, and pleas like that are what can give rise to the exceptions I
> was talking about.
>
> These exceptions do not, however, mean that it's a free-for-all for all
> kinds of historic boundaries. I don't know about Rutland - the way you
> say it sounds as if it is, and has always been, crystal clear what is
> part of Rutland and what is not. But one participant in this thread has
> stated that their particular county boundary has changed many times over
> the years. I don't know if the people inhabiting the areas that have
> changed hands each time kept a stubborn affection for "their *real*
> county" just as you describe the people of Rutland to have done. For the
> sake of the argument, let's assume there had been a couple of minor
> changes to the boundary of "Rutland County Council District Council"
> since 1997. Surely your argument which seems to be based on the romantic
> "Rutland that people feel in their hearts" could not be applied as a
> reason to store "Rutland County Council District Council in the borders
> of 1997", plus "Rutland County Council District Council in the borders
> of 1999", and also "Rutland County Council District Council in the
> borders of 2003"...?
>
> A line needs to be drawn, because otherwise there 

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

2018-09-20 Thread Martin Wynne
The argument against the historic county boundaries is that they can't 
be verified on the ground.


No, Martyn. It's that they are not current.



Make up your minds!

Previously:

> > On 09/19/2018 06:38 PM, Martin Wynne wrote:
> > I'm puzzled by this insistence that we can map only that which
> > is "current or real".

> Usually people don't say "current or real" but "verifiable on the
> ground". The fundamental idea goes like this: If two mappers disagree
> about a feature, they can simply go there and the conflict can be
> solved immediately.

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

2018-09-20 Thread Colin Smale
On 2018-09-20 13:22, Dave F wrote:

> As I noted previously, many discussions have been had & a decision made.

The discussion is clearly ongoing Could you point me to the
"decision" please?___
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

2018-09-20 Thread Dave F


On 20/09/2018 12:07, Martin Wynne wrote:


The argument against the historic county boundaries is that they can't 
be verified on the ground.


No, Martyn. It's that they are not current.

Current boundaries aren't visible on the ground either. No one's painted 
dashed lines across the fields, but they're still real & verifiable via 
LA's documentation.


Cheers
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

2018-09-20 Thread Martin Wynne

Poohsticks.


(How did the conversation get to this...)


The argument against the historic county boundaries is that they can't 
be verified on the ground.


I map lots of stuff that can't be verified on the ground. For example 
rural bus stops often have no physical marker.


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

2018-09-20 Thread Dave F

On 20/09/2018 11:57, Dan S wrote:

Poohsticks.
(How did the conversation get to this...)


OSM threads *always* go off track, often from the first reply.

Could we all please /try/ to keep on topic, or start a new thread?

Cheers
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

2018-09-20 Thread Martin Wynne
Do we map pipelines? Or just the visible markers? What is the correct 
tagging for this:


Sorry, forget that. I found:

 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:pipeline%3Dmarker

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

2018-09-20 Thread Dan S
Op do 20 sep. 2018 om 09:46 schreef Colin Smale :
>
> On 2018-09-20 10:25, Martin Wynne wrote:
>
> But I can't verify that fact. Should I not map it at all? What is verifiable 
> on the ground is the fact that the stream does not stop dead at one location 
> and restart at another.
>
> How can you verify it's the same stream?

Poohsticks.


(How did the conversation get to this...)

___
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

2018-09-20 Thread Martin Wynne

How can you verify it's the same stream?


I can't.  I've deleted it.

This raises the question of the maximum length of a culvert under a 
road, beyond which it is no longer permissible to map it as such. Under 
a country lane is ok? But under a motorway?


What is a stream? Even if it's the same water, does that make it the 
same stream? Is a pipe a stream?


Do we map pipelines? Or just the visible markers? What is the correct 
tagging for this:


 https://goo.gl/maps/2NEHNpuz2SH2

or this (same pipeline):

 https://goo.gl/maps/ME2EMqXE7dH2

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

2018-09-20 Thread Colin Smale
On 2018-09-20 10:25, Martin Wynne wrote:

> But I can't verify that fact. Should I not map it at all? What is verifiable 
> on the ground is the fact that the stream does not stop dead at one location 
> and restart at another.

How can you verify it's the same stream? Taking your own flourescein or
a RFID-tagged carp on mapping expeditions? It may be highly likely that
it is the same stream, but that is not the same as being verifiable.___
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

2018-09-20 Thread Martin Wynne

it is one of our basic principles and it's here to stay.
Usually people don't say "current or real" but "verifiable on the
ground". The fundamental idea goes like this: If two mappers disagree
about a feature, they can simply go there and the conflict can be solved
immediately.


"Verifiable on the ground" is easier said than done. I have just been 
mapping a small stream which has been piped under a residential area. 
Verifiable on the ground is the fact that it enters the pipe at one 
location, and exits the pipe at another location. What is not verifiable 
on the ground is the route the pipe takes between the two. I have 
assumed that it is not a straight line, because that would take it 
directly under some of the houses, but that it follows the road layout 
for maintenance access if needed.


But I can't verify that fact. Should I not map it at all? What is 
verifiable on the ground is the fact that the stream does not stop dead 
at one location and restart at another.


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

2018-09-20 Thread Lester Caine

On 20/09/2018 07:24, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Surely your argument which seems to be based on the romantic
"Rutland that people feel in their hearts" could not be applied as a
reason to store "Rutland County Council District Council in the borders
of 1997", plus "Rutland County Council District Council in the borders
of 1999", and also "Rutland County Council District Council in the
borders of 2003"...?


That people have a desire to view this data is a simple fact. Had the 
1997 boundary been drawn at that time, and then update to '1999' and 
subsequently to '2003' means that this data would have been in the 
database and as others keep pointing out would be accessible by looking 
at the change logs. The next changes will also be logged the same way, 
but ACCESSING the historic views is not an easy process?


The current 'process' dictates that OHM should take over the job of 
displaying the older versions but there is currently no easy way to 
carry out that process, and these 'special cases' then have to exist in 
parallel across both databases. So is there not a good reason to start 
processing 'start_date' and 'end_date' properly so that an object CAN 
exist in different configurations over time. Material which has an 
'end_date' is ignored by any 'current map' processes in which case a 
'special case' historic element would be named as such and not have an 
end_date ...


Current data will become superseded, and one is then adding the new 
version, but the old version is still valid data and needs to be handled 
better than it is currently. If the process is managed properly then 
adding additional historic data should not be a problem since the vast 
majority of that data will simply be a 'start_date' for objects that ARE 
current in the database!


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - https://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - https://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
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

2018-09-20 Thread Frederik Ramm
Richard,

On 20.09.2018 00:01, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> From 1974 to 1997, the county of Rutland didn't exist.

It's nice to see such a passionate plea for one particular historic
boundary, and pleas like that are what can give rise to the exceptions I
was talking about.

These exceptions do not, however, mean that it's a free-for-all for all
kinds of historic boundaries. I don't know about Rutland - the way you
say it sounds as if it is, and has always been, crystal clear what is
part of Rutland and what is not. But one participant in this thread has
stated that their particular county boundary has changed many times over
the years. I don't know if the people inhabiting the areas that have
changed hands each time kept a stubborn affection for "their *real*
county" just as you describe the people of Rutland to have done. For the
sake of the argument, let's assume there had been a couple of minor
changes to the boundary of "Rutland County Council District Council"
since 1997. Surely your argument which seems to be based on the romantic
"Rutland that people feel in their hearts" could not be applied as a
reason to store "Rutland County Council District Council in the borders
of 1997", plus "Rutland County Council District Council in the borders
of 1999", and also "Rutland County Council District Council in the
borders of 2003"...?

A line needs to be drawn, because otherwise there *will* be people
mapping these things ("for historic interest"), and they won't stop at
historic administrative boundaries; they will include electoral wards of
all EU elections back to god knows when, parish boundaries from 1905,
and school districts for good measure. And each time it will become more
different to maintain the data. How is someone who moves a river to be
more in line with current aerial imagery supposed to know which of the
23 boundaries using that river should be affected and which not?

All the reasons you have listed were based on popular use. You said
things like "pretty much everyone put their address as ...", "no-one
thinks they live in ..." etc.; at the same time such things are often
not very precise and don't easily lend themselves to drawing boundaries.
The "West Hampstead" you mention is mapped as a point - perhaps
precisely because it has no documented administrative boundary to go
with it but is a "property speculator's construct" as you say?

I think that if case-by-case exceptions are made from our "verifiable on
the ground" rule, then at the very least the object in question must be
important enough (an admin boundary that 30.000 people believe to live
in would qualify, an electoral ward that was abolished in 1905 and is
only remembered by those of the age 120+, not so much), and if someone
wants to map it as a relation (which cannot be done in a fuzzy way) then
it must be sufficiently clear where the boundary is because else we'll
have 10 mappers edit-warring over if a certain address still belongs to
the posh neighbourhood of Silver Springs or to its seedy neighbour,
Golden Showers.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
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

2018-09-19 Thread Rob Nickerson
Like Brian, I am interested if OSM UK can do anything here. I liked his
suggestion of a vote with a minimum number of people (with work done in
advance by volunteers on both sides).

In a semi-related note: Does anyone have the admin boundaries (including
low level such as Borough and District) from 1947? I ask because the
electricity regions were established in the Electricity Act 1947 and I
believe they may still be the same (or largely the same). BTW I want these
for something else - not OSM. But you could argue that if we have public
transport fare zones in OSM then maybe Electricity Regions make sense too.

Thanks,
*Rob*
___
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

2018-09-19 Thread Richard Fairhurst
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> But we are not fundamentalists, and we do allow exceptions. One 
> obvious exception is current administrative boundaries; they are 
> not easily verifiable on the ground but we're making an exception 
> because of their undoubted usefulness.

From 1974 to 1997, the county of Rutland didn't exist. It was gone. Kaputt.
It was subsumed into Leicestershire, because a county with just 30,000
inhabitants is patently ridiculous etc. etc.

Except for those 23 years, pretty much every one of those 30,000 inhabitants
(including me, from 1984) still put their postal address as "Oakham,
Rutland" or "Cottesmore, Rutland" or whatever. As far as they were concerned
they lived in Rutland. If OSM had existed back then, they would have typed
"Oakham, Rutland" into the search box, and expected Nominatim to give them
the correct response. Not Oakham in the Black Country, or Rutland VT, or
whatever.

In fact, so strong was the local attachment to the idea of Rutland that in
1997 the national Government brought it back. Rutland became a county once
more.[1] It still is one today.[2] It was an admission that for 23 years,
the situation on the ground - i.e. what people called the place - had been
the historic county boundary, not the present-day one. In terms of
geocoding, if not in terms of who collected the rates, the official admin
boundary was... I hesitate to say wrong, but certainly partial.

I'm sure it's different in other European countries where things are more
regulated and where you have fancy shit like official registers of streets
and a written constitution and all that. But placenames in Britain don't
always accord with present-day official documents. London suburbs are the
classic example: shifting, amorphous areas, often named at the whim of
estate agents. "Newham" is an artificial construct with an entire borough
council behind it, whereas "West Hampstead" is a property speculator's
construct (the original speculators being, of course, the Metropolitan
Railway and their ever-advancing Metroland) with little legal standing.[3]
But that doesn't stop us mapping West Hampstead as place=suburb, and that's
good, because thousands of people think they live there, and over on the
other side of town, precisely no-one thinks they live in Newham.

So:

Historic counties can and often do represent genuine, attested, useful
geographic information. If you're proposing to delete them, you need to come
up with a solution that will retain that information.

Or, alternatively, you could stop faffing with Wikipedia-like deletionism
and focus on making the map better. OSM would be a better, and nicer, place
if people went out and did mapping, rather than staying at home and doing
deleting. I might have said that before.[4]

Richard

[1] Though legally it's a unitary district council with the faintly
hilarious title of "Rutland County Council District Council"... go figure
[2] And it was one of the first places we mapped in its entirety!
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Rutland_England/2006_Rutland_Mapping_Party
[3] It belatedly became an electoral ward in 2002, I think.
[4] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2015-August/074009.html .
Fans of Groundhog Day may wish to reread the whole railroad thread.



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html

___
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

2018-09-19 Thread Andrew Hain
Richmond cricket club play in the Middlesex league and Middlesex sometimes play 
at their Old Deer Park 
ground[https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/51.46911/-0.29533]. Neighbouring 
Sheen Park[https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/51.4579/-0.2708] play in both 
the Middlesex and Surrey leagues.

--
Andrew

From: Robert Skedgell 
Sent: 19 September 2018 21:24
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database



On 19/09/2018 16:04, Andrew Black wrote:
> There is a very big difference
>
> - ceremonial counties exist now and so are in scope for OSM.  As you say
> here are differences between them and admin counties when unitary
> authorties are involved
>  - traditional counties are an attempt to recreate the past
> So I don't think these trad counties have any ceremonial existence any
> more.  Which means they are just causing confusion.
>
> I live in London. The place I live in has been inb the county of London
> since 1889. But the traditional county beast says I live in Surrey.

I also live in London, east of the River Lea (historical Essex). It
certainly makes a difference for the purposes of athletics: my running
club is the other side of the Lea and affiliated to Middlesex, but I am
ineligible to compete in Middlesex County AA races. I suspect people
participating in other sports at club level are affected by historic
counties.

I do not have any strong views on whether or not they should be included
in OSM, but even now they are not entirely irrelevant.

--
Robert Skedgell (rskedgell)



___
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

2018-09-19 Thread Colin Smale
On 2018-09-19 18:59, Frederik Ramm wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On 09/19/2018 06:38 PM, Martin Wynne wrote:I'm puzzled by this insistence 
> that we can map only that which is
> "current or real".
> You shouldn't, it is one of our basic principles and it's here to stay.
> Usually people don't say "current or real" but "verifiable on the
> ground". The fundamental idea goes like this: If two mappers disagree
> about a feature, they can simply go there and the conflict can be solved
> immediately.

It's time this mantra was updated. A more practical version would be
something like "independently and publicly verifiable." In other words,
verifiable by a random mapper without special privilege using only
acceptable sources. If two mappers disagree, the point can often be
decided by reference to the sources, without needing a site visit.___
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

2018-09-19 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hi,

On 09/19/2018 06:38 PM, Martin Wynne wrote:
> I'm puzzled by this insistence that we can map only that which is
> "current or real".

You shouldn't, it is one of our basic principles and it's here to stay.
Usually people don't say "current or real" but "verifiable on the
ground". The fundamental idea goes like this: If two mappers disagree
about a feature, they can simply go there and the conflict can be solved
immediately.

Allowing stuff that is not verifiable on the ground would rob us of this
possibility - all of a sudden we'd have to meet in libraries or
courthouses or universities to find out who's right.

We don't want that, generally.

But we are not fundamentalists, and we do allow exceptions. One obvious
exception is current administrative boundaries; they are not easily
verifiable on the ground but we're making an exception because of their
undoubted usefulness.

In addition these generally accepted exceptions, there's also a lot of
stuff in our database that will not withstand scrutiny and will likely
be deleted if someone looks at it with a keen "is this verifiable on the
ground" eye. The existence of such data cannot be taken as a sign that
our principles are moot.

> See for example this node:
> 
>  https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2518973091
> 
> There is absolutely nothing on the ground. And 1402 is a long time ago
> to be current.
> 
> But there is a brown sign directing visitors to it:
> 
>  https://goo.gl/maps/LSVnemQ5fxw

Yes, you would normally at least map the sign so there's less potential
for a dispute.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
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

2018-09-19 Thread Martin Wynne
I'm puzzled by this insistence that we can map only that which is 
"current or real".


See for example this node:

 https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2518973091

There is absolutely nothing on the ground. And 1402 is a long time ago 
to be current.


But there is a brown sign directing visitors to it:

 https://goo.gl/maps/LSVnemQ5fxw

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

2018-09-19 Thread Mark Goodge



On 19/09/2018 16:57, Steve Doerr wrote:

On 19/09/2018 16:04, Andrew Black wrote:

I live in London. The place I live in has been inb the county of 
London since 1889. But the traditional county beast says I live in 
Surrey.


Then you will be familiar with the annual boat race between Oxford and 
Cambridge universities, at the start of which they toss a coin to decide 
who will row from the 'Surrey station' and who from the 'Middlesex 
station'. These counties still have cultural significance today.


Just because the sides are named after former counties doesn't mean 
those counties still exist. The Isle of Ely doesn't exist as a current 
administrative boundary any more either, but that doesn't stop several 
organisations based in the area it used to cover having that phrase in 
their name. Including, appropriately in this context, the Isle of Ely 
Rowing Club :-)


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

2018-09-19 Thread Steve Doerr

On 19/09/2018 16:04, Andrew Black wrote:

There is a very big difference

- ceremonial counties exist now and so are in scope for OSM.  As you 
say here are differences between them and admin counties when unitary 
authorties are involved

 - traditional counties are an attempt to recreate the past
So I don't think these trad counties have any ceremonial existence any 
more.  Which means they are just causing confusion.


I live in London. The place I live in has been inb the county of 
London since 1889. But the traditional county beast says I live in Surrey.



Then you will be familiar with the annual boat race between Oxford and 
Cambridge universities, at the start of which they toss a coin to decide 
who will row from the 'Surrey station' and who from the 'Middlesex 
station'. These counties still have cultural significance today.



--

Steve


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
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

2018-09-19 Thread Andrew Black
There is a very big difference

- ceremonial counties exist now and so are in scope for OSM.  As you say
here are differences between them and admin counties when unitary
authorties are involved
 - traditional counties are an attempt to recreate the past
So I don't think these trad counties have any ceremonial existence any
more.  Which means they are just causing confusion.

I live in London. The place I live in has been inb the county of London
since 1889. But the traditional county beast says I live in Surrey.



>
>
> I'm not sure what the difference is between boundary=ceremonial and
> boundary=traditional (I believe the ceremonial counties generally include
> the districts which were in the county but now are unitary authorities so
> not in the boundary=administrative).
>
> Ed
>
>
>
___
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

2018-09-19 Thread Ed Loach
Warin wrote:

> OSM users can easily remove stuff in there pre filtering of OSM data.
> So it is not an issue for them.

I missed the start of this thread (it was last month - I was nomail) but agree 
with this. If OSM user's want boundaries from OSM then they can quite happily 
set up a filter to only get those tagged boundary=administrative or 
boundary=ceremonial (which has long been used) or boundary=vice_county or 
boundary=political or boundary=traditional or whatever. My relation boundary 
checker [1] (which I discover is still running daily) slightly separates out 
the results into different pages based on boundary=

I'm not sure what the difference is between boundary=ceremonial and 
boundary=traditional (I believe the ceremonial counties generally include the 
districts which were in the county but now are unitary authorities so not in 
the boundary=administrative).

Ed

[1] http://loach.me.uk/osm/boundaries/Default.aspx


___
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

2018-09-19 Thread Brian Prangle
I've not participated in this debate because I have no strong views either
way and no specialist knowledge to contribute. However I don't think a
decision has been reached here as there are roughly equal numbers for and
against and those  "just commenting" from a thread population of 17 -
hardly representative of the UK OSM community.

I'd like to develp Colin's emphasis on process on how we can arrive at a
decision and what follows from that decision and ifany of  you see a role
for the UK Chapter in all of this

We can have a Loomio vote but I would suggest we set a minimum number of
voters for it to be seen as representing the UK community. Might I suggest
60?  I think that's roughly the number of  users editing the map daily.

If the vote is for retaining historic boundaries then we need a volunteer
(before the vote!) to document the wiki, taking on board Frederik's comments
If the vote is for not having them then I suggest a two stage process:
1. All new edits get reverted
2. A plan is drawn up for retaining all the current data by migrating it to
OHM and then deleting it from OSM.  That respects all the hard work by
Sean. Again identified before the vote takes place! (Might I suggest that
those complaining loudest consider stepping forward to do this?)

If we can't get volunteers for these processes then I suggest a vote is not
worthwhile

Regards

Brian

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 at 22:53, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 27/08/18 06:05, 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?
> >
> >
>
>
> OSM users can easily remove stuff in there pre filtering of OSM data. So
> it is not an issue for them.
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

2018-09-18 Thread Warin

On 27/08/18 06:05, 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?





OSM users can easily remove stuff in there pre filtering of OSM data. So 
it is not an issue for them.





___
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

2018-09-18 Thread Adam Snape
Hi,

I think this needs discussing on its own merits, because the argument being
made here is different to the usual argument for adding historical
features. The OP and others have made clear that the motivation lies not in
recording now-disappeared historical features, but in mapping traditional
geographic boundaries that retain some cultural (and in some cases such as
the Royal Duchies - administrative and ceremonial) importance.

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

2018-09-18 Thread Colin Smale
On 2018-09-18 15:47, Dave F wrote:

> As Frederick & others point out - It will open the floodgates for other 
> irrelevant data to be added.

Relevance is not at issue here - that is far too subjective. The point
is that the "OSM Community" is making a decision that this data is not
within the intended scope of OSM and is therefore nominated for
deletion. 

All we need now is a volunteer to: 

a) document the determination such that it can be used as jurisprudence
in similar cases in the future 

b) communicate this to the user in question 

c) perform the deletion 

As this is purely about data, it should probably be the DWG?___
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

2018-09-18 Thread Dave F

Hi all.

There's appears to be a misguided belief this hasn't been discussed 
previously. It has, numerous times, and the consensus of those who took 
part was so clear it's now included in the first page every new users sees.


I feel there is nothing to discuss/vote on as it all been said & done 
before. Transference to OHM is the only option.


As Frederick & others point out - It will open the floodgates for other 
irrelevant data to be added.


Cheers
DaveF


On 18/09/2018 09:53, Adam Snape wrote:

His,

I think I said earlier in the thread but I've never viewed OSM as a 
strict majority rule, more a do-ocracy or rule by consensus. 
Certainly, I think anybody proposing the deletion of others' mapping 
ought to be sure of clear community consensus, not just a mere 
majority opinion. Future mappers should not be bound by the views of 
7/12 mappers participating in a Loomio vote in 2018.


Kind regards,

Adam


On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, 09:11 Dan S, > wrote:


Though I've no particular expertise to add, this thread has tipped me
in favour of being happy with these boundaries. Colin very rightly
emphasised process - how do we come to some decision rather than
simply expressing our views and then sitting back waiting for it to
erupt again in 18 months? I'm not a big one for voting eg on tagging
but this seems to be a great case for a Loomio vote or a wiki vote, as
has already been suggested. Can someone perhaps set one up? Maybe a
Loomio vote, and we'd probably want to paste its outcome into the wiki
after to make sure it wasn't lost?

Dan

___
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

2018-09-18 Thread Adam Snape
His,

I think I said earlier in the thread but I've never viewed OSM as a strict
majority rule, more a do-ocracy or rule by consensus. Certainly, I think
anybody proposing the deletion of others' mapping ought to be sure of clear
community consensus, not just a mere majority opinion. Future mappers
should not be bound by the views of 7/12 mappers participating in a Loomio
vote in 2018.

Kind regards,

Adam


On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, 09:11 Dan S,  wrote:

> Though I've no particular expertise to add, this thread has tipped me
> in favour of being happy with these boundaries. Colin very rightly
> emphasised process - how do we come to some decision rather than
> simply expressing our views and then sitting back waiting for it to
> erupt again in 18 months? I'm not a big one for voting eg on tagging
> but this seems to be a great case for a Loomio vote or a wiki vote, as
> has already been suggested. Can someone perhaps set one up? Maybe a
> Loomio vote, and we'd probably want to paste its outcome into the wiki
> after to make sure it wasn't lost?
>
> Dan
>
> ___
> 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

2018-09-18 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hi,

On 18.09.2018 10:04, Dan S wrote:
> Though I've no particular expertise to add, this thread has tipped me
> in favour of being happy with these boundaries. Colin very rightly
> emphasised process - how do we come to some decision rather than
> simply expressing our views and then sitting back waiting for it to
> erupt again in 18 months? 

Also, a decision in favour of keeping historic boundaries should explain
exactly why an exception was made from the general rule in this case, so
that people won't take this as a reason to map historic fiefdoms all
over the planet.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
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

2018-09-18 Thread Dan S
Though I've no particular expertise to add, this thread has tipped me
in favour of being happy with these boundaries. Colin very rightly
emphasised process - how do we come to some decision rather than
simply expressing our views and then sitting back waiting for it to
erupt again in 18 months? I'm not a big one for voting eg on tagging
but this seems to be a great case for a Loomio vote or a wiki vote, as
has already been suggested. Can someone perhaps set one up? Maybe a
Loomio vote, and we'd probably want to paste its outcome into the wiki
after to make sure it wasn't lost?

Dan

___
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

2018-08-26 Thread 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

2018-08-26 Thread 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


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

2018-08-26 Thread 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] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

2018-08-26 Thread 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

2018-08-26 Thread 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

2018-08-26 Thread 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

2018-08-26 Thread 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

2018-08-26 Thread 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] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

2018-08-26 Thread 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

2018-08-26 Thread 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

2018-08-26 Thread 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

2018-08-26 Thread 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] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

2018-08-26 Thread 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] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

2018-08-26 Thread 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


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

2018-08-26 Thread 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

2018-08-26 Thread 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

2018-08-26 Thread 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

2018-08-26 Thread 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

2018-08-26 Thread 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

2018-08-26 Thread 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

2018-08-26 Thread 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

2018-08-26 Thread 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

2018-08-26 Thread 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

2018-08-26 Thread 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


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

2018-08-10 Thread David Woolley

On 10/08/18 13:00, Martin Wynne wrote:
In this area I was taken to task for adjusting an unexplained boundary, 
which turned out to be the local "PlusBus" area boundary for inclusive 
fares from the nearest railway station


That's likely to be subject to database rights, as I don't think that it 
is normal to sign stops with whether or not they are in the area.


In any case an actual boundary can only be obtained from another map, 
not from the ground.  The best you could do on the ground is identify 
the finite set of existing stops that are in the area.



postal counties


These no longer exist.  All you need to fully address mail is the 
postcode plus the two character delivery point suffix, within that post 
code (which is usually, but not necessarily, a simple encoding of the 
house number, although not in base 10).  In practice, though, the postie 
actually wants the street name as well, as I used just post code and 
house number on the return to sender address, and got a note that it 
takes an extra day to find the street.


___
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

2018-08-10 Thread Colin Smale
On 2018-08-10 15:35, Mark Goodge wrote:

> On 10/08/2018 13:14, Colin Smale wrote:
> 
>> Who is the arbiter of relevance? I think for any given "mapper" or 
>> "consumer" 99% of the contents of OSM is not relevant. People are mapping 
>> the nuts and bolts of the insulators on electricity pylons.. I can't see 
>> that being relevant to most people.
> 
> Can you see the nuts and bolts?
> 
> I don't think there's any real argument about whether or not we map things we 
> can see. There may be disagreements about *how* we map them, but the basic 
> principle that we map what is visible is, I think, pretty firmly established.
> 
> The basic question here is how we go about mapping things which you can't see 
> - intangibles, such as administrative boundaries, postcodes, road numbers, 
> etc. And that's where questions of relevance come into it.

And by extension the dilemma where what is visible is demonstrably
wrong, e.g. a typo on a street name sign. If we stick to exactly what we
see, we propagate the error. If we apply a bit of QC and make the street
name consistent, we have a better map. 

> The basic principle of OSM is that it is free, in all possible senses. 
> It's free, but it isn't unrestrained. You can't just make up entries. You 
> can't put Ambridge and Hogwarts on the map (although you can, now, include 
> Platform 9 3/4). You can't label a road as a river and a wood as a 
> skyscraper. To be useful, we have to agree to a common set of principles and 
> then stick to them.

Yes you can, until and unless it gets noticed. There are no barriers to
creative, erroneous or downright mischievous tagging - except "social
control" by others, which is very hit-and-miss. In some areas mappers
may have "adopted" their town and monitor every change in a defined
area, and in other cases people might monitor the whole world for a
specific object type. But my suspicion is that most objects in most
places are scarcely "policed" in any way. It would be nice (IMHO) if
this ex-post moderation itself were to be monitored, to help ensure that
every little corner of OSM has somebody/something keeping an eye on it
to detect anomalous mapping, and all the "moderators" (human or
otherwise) worked to consistent standards. But then we get back to the
nub of the problem: who defines these standards, and thereby codifies
what is right and wrong? Nobody wants to burn their fingers on this
proactively, so we are stuck with a patchy, reactive system and the most
incredible inertia which kills many attempts to improve data
consistency. Sacrificing the good on the altar of the perfect...___
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

2018-08-10 Thread Mark Goodge



On 10/08/2018 13:14, Colin Smale wrote:

Who is the arbiter of relevance? I think for any given "mapper" or 
"consumer" 99% of the contents of OSM is not relevant. People are 
mapping the nuts and bolts of the insulators on electricity pylons.. I 
can't see that being relevant to most people.


Can you see the nuts and bolts?

I don't think there's any real argument about whether or not we map 
things we can see. There may be disagreements about *how* we map them, 
but the basic principle that we map what is visible is, I think, pretty 
firmly established.


The basic question here is how we go about mapping things which you 
can't see - intangibles, such as administrative boundaries, postcodes, 
road numbers, etc. And that's where questions of relevance come into it.


The basic principle of OSM is that it is free, in all possible senses. 


It's free, but it isn't unrestrained. You can't just make up entries. 
You can't put Ambridge and Hogwarts on the map (although you can, now, 
include Platform 9 3/4). You can't label a road as a river and a wood as 
a skyscraper. To be useful, we have to agree to a common set of 
principles and then stick to them.


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

2018-08-10 Thread Andrew Hain
Postal counties (mainly a outer London and Manchester thing in this context) 
are essentially defunct.

--
Andrew

From: Martin Wynne 
Sent: 10 August 2018 13:00:40
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

> The "historic" boundaries, though, whatever particular snapshot of them
> you choose as the most important one, don't have any relevance to
> everyday life.

Are not some of them still relevant to post-code areas and postal counties?

Lots of useful stuff appears on OSM for which there is nothing physical
on the ground. Bus stops in rural areas are frequently timetabled as
"Rose & Crown" or the name of a side road. There is nothing on the ground.

In this area I was taken to task for adjusting an unexplained boundary,
which turned out to be the local "PlusBus" area boundary for inclusive
fares from the nearest railway station:

  http://plusbus.info/

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

2018-08-10 Thread Colin Smale
On 2018-08-10 13:37, Mark Goodge wrote:

> On 10/08/2018 12:05, John Aldridge wrote:I'd like to register a +1 in favour 
> of accepting these historic counties.
> 
> I *generally* agree with your principle of 'only mapping what is on the 
> ground', but if we followed that strictly we wouldn't map current 
> administrative boundaries either. These historic counties do, rightly or 
> wrongly, form part of some people's sense of identity *today*, and I think 
> that crosses the bar for inclusion.
> The current administrative boundaries are relevant to everyday life in a 
> number of different ways. Even if you can't see them on the ground, the 
> boundaries determine who collects your bins, who you can vote for, who fixes 
> the potholes in the roads, who manages school admissions, etc.
> 
> The "historic" boundaries, though, whatever particular snapshot of them you 
> choose as the most important one, don't have any relevance to everyday life. 
> They do matter to a small number of people with specialist uses, but - like 
> now-obliterated routes of former railways - they are better suited to a 
> spin-off project rather than being in the core OSM.

Who is the arbiter of relevance? I think for any given "mapper" or
"consumer" 99% of the contents of OSM is not relevant. People are
mapping the nuts and bolts of the insulators on electricity pylons.. I
can't see that being relevant to most people. 

The basic principle of OSM is that it is free, in all possible senses.
There is no up-front right and wrong, nor good and bad; anything goes
unless and until it is noticed and challenged for crossing some
poorly-defined boundary. Often it is the well-intentioned mapper who
opens a discussion prior to adding their favourite information who is
the victim; I expect most mappers just "get on with it" and are never
challenged, however esoteric their mapping. I wish we could be more
consistent in this, but it will probably never happen because of our
collective allergy to limiting mappers' creative freedoms.___
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

2018-08-10 Thread Dave F

Hi

On 10/08/2018 12:05, John Aldridge wrote:
I *generally* agree with your principle of 'only mapping what is on 
the ground', but if we followed that strictly we wouldn't map current 
administrative boundaries either. 


That isn't the correct mantra.

"OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both /real and 
current"/


https://www.openstreetmap.org/welcome

The admin boundaries we map are both real, as set out in legislation, & 
current.


The historic boundaries recently added are not current, their "origins 
lie in antiquity." They are not "used for the purposes of 
administrative, geographical and political demarcation."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counties_of_the_United_Kingdom

These historic counties do, rightly or wrongly, form part of some 
people's sense of identity *today*, and I think that crosses the bar 
for inclusion.


But they don't cross OSM's bar.

I'm struggling to fathom how 1888 can be considered "today", and I'm 
unsure how someone's 'sense of identity' is relevant to what is mapped.


'wrongly' is not a reason for inclusion.

Cheers
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

2018-08-10 Thread Martin Wynne
The "historic" boundaries, though, whatever particular snapshot of them 
you choose as the most important one, don't have any relevance to 
everyday life.


Are not some of them still relevant to post-code areas and postal counties?

Lots of useful stuff appears on OSM for which there is nothing physical 
on the ground. Bus stops in rural areas are frequently timetabled as 
"Rose & Crown" or the name of a side road. There is nothing on the ground.


In this area I was taken to task for adjusting an unexplained boundary, 
which turned out to be the local "PlusBus" area boundary for inclusive 
fares from the nearest railway station:


 http://plusbus.info/

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

2018-08-10 Thread Mark Goodge



On 10/08/2018 12:05, John Aldridge wrote:

I'd like to register a +1 in favour of accepting these historic counties.

I *generally* agree with your principle of 'only mapping what is on the 
ground', but if we followed that strictly we wouldn't map current 
administrative boundaries either. These historic counties do, rightly or 
wrongly, form part of some people's sense of identity *today*, and I 
think that crosses the bar for inclusion.


The current administrative boundaries are relevant to everyday life in a 
number of different ways. Even if you can't see them on the ground, the 
boundaries determine who collects your bins, who you can vote for, who 
fixes the potholes in the roads, who manages school admissions, etc.


The "historic" boundaries, though, whatever particular snapshot of them 
you choose as the most important one, don't have any relevance to 
everyday life. They do matter to a small number of people with 
specialist uses, but - like now-obliterated routes of former railways - 
they are better suited to a spin-off project rather than being in the 
core OSM.


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

2018-08-10 Thread John Aldridge

I'd like to register a +1 in favour of accepting these historic counties.

I *generally* agree with your principle of 'only mapping what is on the 
ground', but if we followed that strictly we wouldn't map current 
administrative boundaries either. These historic counties do, rightly or 
wrongly, form part of some people's sense of identity *today*, and I 
think that crosses the bar for inclusion.


--
Cheers,
John

On 10-Aug-18 09:38, Stuart Reynolds wrote:

Hi

I’ve watched this from afar, but thought that I would add my two 
pennyworth, as a more casual mapper.


Historic county boundaries have some merit (in a very general sense), 
but where do you draw the line? As it happens, I was discussing where, 
exactly, Middlesex was with my son only yesterday, and I looked it up on 
Wikipedia. Turns out that Middlesex has changed quite significantly over 
time. First of all, it existed. Then, some of it got plonked into London 
- and it had already lost the City of London and Westminster by then. 
Bits of it got hived off to Hertfordshire. Then the rest of it got 
incorporated into Greater London. So what would you map, historically? 
Do you map every single variation of it, and try and date them all? If 
you were going to map historic counties properly, then you must.


But think what this does to the data. Think what this does for the new 
mapper (who we are trying to encourage). There is now a mass of 
overlapping, conflicting entities to edit. You need to go through every 
one, laboriously, working out which ones you need to edit, and which 
ones you need to leave alone. It’s a data management nightmare, and the 
chances of the wrong thing being edited, or being edited incorrectly, 
rises exponentially.


Personally, I have never particularly liked the variety of ways that OSM 
attempts to map disused / demolished entities (e.g. bus station 
rebuilds, etc) even now. I am firmly of the opinion that we should be 
mapping existing, current, objects, and that things that don’t exist on 
the ground should be ripped out. If OSM as an organisation wants to take 
annual snapshots for posterity, or to set up a separate “historic OSM” 
then I am all for it - I won’t be mapping in it, myself, although I 
would have an interest in using it. As in my Middlesex example, though, 
you would still have data management issues unless you compartmentalise 
it by year - but that is a whole new interface or workflow.


So I am very strongly in favour of NOT mapping historic counties, and 
only mapping what is on the ground (or verifiably shortly to be there, 
as in new builds)


Stuart


On 10 Aug 2018, at 09:24, Sean Blanchflower > wrote:



I guess you at least acknowledge that not everyone agrees with your 
views below though.


A quick factual error though: the traditional/historic counties were 
not administrative in the sense that current areas are. The changes of 
the Local Government Act 1888 were to create administrative areas for 
the first time, and it was the fact that they were called 'counties' 
that has caused all the trouble since then. The government 
acknowledged that the new areas were distinct from the existing 
counties and were not replacing them, and in fact the Ordnance Survey 
continued to print them on maps after then.


How do we reach some compromise here? We seem to be at an impasse.

> I'm sorry, but this is complete and utter bullshit. The "historic" 
> county boundaries are no more "real" than the current ones. They were, 
> at the time, the administrative boundaries. They are no longer the 
> administrative boundaries.

>
> I do appreciate that there are matters where the historic boundaries are 
> relevant (primarily genealogical research). But that's not really a 
> mapping issue., And the emotional attachment to the pre-1974 boundaries 
> is just that - emotion, not based on any objective assessment. And the 
> fact that, in retrospect, the 1970s changes were over-reaching and did a 
> lot of harm does not change that.

>
> Describing the historic boundaries as "real" is like insisting that we 
> map, say, the old Euston station the way it was before it was rebuilt, 
> because it was a lot nicer then. It may well be the case that it was. 
> But we map what exists now, not what existed in the past and in 
> rose-tinted memory. The same with county (and other administrative) 
> boundaries. We map what is, not what was.



On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 3:49 PM Sean Blanchflower > wrote:


Hi all,
I'm smb1001 and have been adding the traditional county boundaries
recently. DaveF kindly let me know of the discussion thread here
so I've joined Talk-GB to add my side of things.

I'm not alone in thinking the traditional county boundaries have a
place on current maps. It's unfortunate here that these counties
are known as 'historic counties' as this implies that they are no
longer extant. The debate as to their current 

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

2018-08-10 Thread David Woolley

On 10/08/18 09:38, Stuart Reynolds wrote:

If OSM as an organisation wants to take annual snapshots for posterity,


You are confusing two different things here.

1) Things that were never current during the lifetime of OSM;

2) Things that have ceased to exist after being mapped.

The latter are never removed from OSM; they are simply not returned by 
standard API queries for the contents of an are.  Redactions apart, the 
database still contains the previously mapped versions of things that 
were mapped and then "deleted".


___
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

2018-08-10 Thread Sean Blanchflower
I completely agree that to map every iteration is of no merit, and that's
never been the aim. There's an accepted definition of the boundaries
(Historic Counties Trust) that by definition will never change. The
Middlesex changes were to the administrative boundaries. The traditional
boundaries remained constant through that.

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 9:38 AM Stuart Reynolds <
stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk> wrote:

> Hi
>
> I’ve watched this from afar, but thought that I would add my two
> pennyworth, as a more casual mapper.
>
> Historic county boundaries have some merit (in a very general sense), but
> where do you draw the line? As it happens, I was discussing where, exactly,
> Middlesex was with my son only yesterday, and I looked it up on Wikipedia.
> Turns out that Middlesex has changed quite significantly over time. First
> of all, it existed. Then, some of it got plonked into London - and it had
> already lost the City of London and Westminster by then. Bits of it got
> hived off to Hertfordshire. Then the rest of it got incorporated into
> Greater London. So what would you map, historically? Do you map every
> single variation of it, and try and date them all? If you were going to map
> historic counties properly, then you must.
>
> But think what this does to the data. Think what this does for the new
> mapper (who we are trying to encourage). There is now a mass of
> overlapping, conflicting entities to edit. You need to go through every
> one, laboriously, working out which ones you need to edit, and which ones
> you need to leave alone. It’s a data management nightmare, and the chances
> of the wrong thing being edited, or being edited incorrectly, rises
> exponentially.
>
> Personally, I have never particularly liked the variety of ways that OSM
> attempts to map disused / demolished entities (e.g. bus station rebuilds,
> etc) even now. I am firmly of the opinion that we should be mapping
> existing, current, objects, and that things that don’t exist on the ground
> should be ripped out. If OSM as an organisation wants to take annual
> snapshots for posterity, or to set up a separate “historic OSM” then I am
> all for it - I won’t be mapping in it, myself, although I would have an
> interest in using it. As in my Middlesex example, though, you would still
> have data management issues unless you compartmentalise it by year - but
> that is a whole new interface or workflow.
>
> So I am very strongly in favour of NOT mapping historic counties, and only
> mapping what is on the ground (or verifiably shortly to be there, as in new
> builds)
>
> Stuart
>
>
> On 10 Aug 2018, at 09:24, Sean Blanchflower  wrote:
>
>
> I guess you at least acknowledge that not everyone agrees with your views
> below though.
>
> A quick factual error though: the traditional/historic counties were not
> administrative in the sense that current areas are. The changes of the
> Local Government Act 1888 were to create administrative areas for the first
> time, and it was the fact that they were called 'counties' that has caused
> all the trouble since then. The government acknowledged that the new areas
> were distinct from the existing counties and were not replacing them, and
> in fact the Ordnance Survey continued to print them on maps after then.
>
> How do we reach some compromise here? We seem to be at an impasse.
>
> > I'm sorry, but this is complete and utter bullshit. The "historic"
> > county boundaries are no more "real" than the current ones. They were,
> > at the time, the administrative boundaries. They are no longer the
> > administrative boundaries.
> >
> > I do appreciate that there are matters where the historic boundaries are
> > relevant (primarily genealogical research). But that's not really a
> > mapping issue., And the emotional attachment to the pre-1974 boundaries
> > is just that - emotion, not based on any objective assessment. And the
> > fact that, in retrospect, the 1970s changes were over-reaching and did a
> > lot of harm does not change that.
> >
> > Describing the historic boundaries as "real" is like insisting that we
> > map, say, the old Euston station the way it was before it was rebuilt,
> > because it was a lot nicer then. It may well be the case that it was.
> > But we map what exists now, not what existed in the past and in
> > rose-tinted memory. The same with county (and other administrative)
> > boundaries. We map what is, not what was.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 3:49 PM Sean Blanchflower 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> I'm smb1001 and have been adding the traditional county boundaries
>> recently. DaveF kindly let me know of the discussion thread here so I've
>> joined Talk-GB to add my side of things.
>>
>> I'm not alone in thinking the traditional county boundaries have a place
>> on current maps. It's unfortunate here that these counties are known as
>> 'historic counties' as this implies that they are no longer extant. The
>> debate as to their current utility or their 

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

2018-08-10 Thread Stuart Reynolds
Hi

I’ve watched this from afar, but thought that I would add my two pennyworth, as 
a more casual mapper.

Historic county boundaries have some merit (in a very general sense), but where 
do you draw the line? As it happens, I was discussing where, exactly, Middlesex 
was with my son only yesterday, and I looked it up on Wikipedia. Turns out that 
Middlesex has changed quite significantly over time. First of all, it existed. 
Then, some of it got plonked into London - and it had already lost the City of 
London and Westminster by then. Bits of it got hived off to Hertfordshire. Then 
the rest of it got incorporated into Greater London. So what would you map, 
historically? Do you map every single variation of it, and try and date them 
all? If you were going to map historic counties properly, then you must.

But think what this does to the data. Think what this does for the new mapper 
(who we are trying to encourage). There is now a mass of overlapping, 
conflicting entities to edit. You need to go through every one, laboriously, 
working out which ones you need to edit, and which ones you need to leave 
alone. It’s a data management nightmare, and the chances of the wrong thing 
being edited, or being edited incorrectly, rises exponentially.

Personally, I have never particularly liked the variety of ways that OSM 
attempts to map disused / demolished entities (e.g. bus station rebuilds, etc) 
even now. I am firmly of the opinion that we should be mapping existing, 
current, objects, and that things that don’t exist on the ground should be 
ripped out. If OSM as an organisation wants to take annual snapshots for 
posterity, or to set up a separate “historic OSM” then I am all for it - I 
won’t be mapping in it, myself, although I would have an interest in using it. 
As in my Middlesex example, though, you would still have data management issues 
unless you compartmentalise it by year - but that is a whole new interface or 
workflow.

So I am very strongly in favour of NOT mapping historic counties, and only 
mapping what is on the ground (or verifiably shortly to be there, as in new 
builds)

Stuart


On 10 Aug 2018, at 09:24, Sean Blanchflower 
mailto:smb1...@gmail.com>> wrote:


I guess you at least acknowledge that not everyone agrees with your views below 
though.

A quick factual error though: the traditional/historic counties were not 
administrative in the sense that current areas are. The changes of the Local 
Government Act 1888 were to create administrative areas for the first time, and 
it was the fact that they were called 'counties' that has caused all the 
trouble since then. The government acknowledged that the new areas were 
distinct from the existing counties and were not replacing them, and in fact 
the Ordnance Survey continued to print them on maps after then.

How do we reach some compromise here? We seem to be at an impasse.


> I'm sorry, but this is complete and utter bullshit. The "historic"
> county boundaries are no more "real" than the current ones. They were,
> at the time, the administrative boundaries. They are no longer the
> administrative boundaries.
>
> I do appreciate that there are matters where the historic boundaries are
> relevant (primarily genealogical research). But that's not really a
> mapping issue., And the emotional attachment to the pre-1974 boundaries
> is just that - emotion, not based on any objective assessment. And the
> fact that, in retrospect, the 1970s changes were over-reaching and did a
> lot of harm does not change that.
>
> Describing the historic boundaries as "real" is like insisting that we
> map, say, the old Euston station the way it was before it was rebuilt,
> because it was a lot nicer then. It may well be the case that it was.
> But we map what exists now, not what existed in the past and in
> rose-tinted memory. The same with county (and other administrative)
> boundaries. We map what is, not what was.



On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 3:49 PM Sean Blanchflower 
mailto:smb1...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi all,
I'm smb1001 and have been adding the traditional county boundaries recently. 
DaveF kindly let me know of the discussion thread here so I've joined Talk-GB 
to add my side of things.

I'm not alone in thinking the traditional county boundaries have a place on 
current maps. It's unfortunate here that these counties are known as 'historic 
counties' as this implies that they are no longer extant. The debate as to 
their current utility or their immutability is not one I feel is relevant here 
as there are arguments on both sides, but the Association of British Counties 
summarises it more succinctly than I could in any case (see 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_British_Counties and the many 
links therein).

I have no intention of adding any "historic" boundaries beyond the counties. I 
settled on the (static) definition of "historic counties" used by the Ordnance 
Survey and UK government and was going to stop there.

I would 

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

2018-08-10 Thread Sean Blanchflower
I guess you at least acknowledge that not everyone agrees with your views
below though.

A quick factual error though: the traditional/historic counties were not
administrative in the sense that current areas are. The changes of the
Local Government Act 1888 were to create administrative areas for the first
time, and it was the fact that they were called 'counties' that has caused
all the trouble since then. The government acknowledged that the new areas
were distinct from the existing counties and were not replacing them, and
in fact the Ordnance Survey continued to print them on maps after then.

How do we reach some compromise here? We seem to be at an impasse.

> I'm sorry, but this is complete and utter bullshit. The "historic"
> county boundaries are no more "real" than the current ones. They were,
> at the time, the administrative boundaries. They are no longer the
> administrative boundaries.
>
> I do appreciate that there are matters where the historic boundaries are
> relevant (primarily genealogical research). But that's not really a
> mapping issue., And the emotional attachment to the pre-1974 boundaries
> is just that - emotion, not based on any objective assessment. And the
> fact that, in retrospect, the 1970s changes were over-reaching and did a
> lot of harm does not change that.
>
> Describing the historic boundaries as "real" is like insisting that we
> map, say, the old Euston station the way it was before it was rebuilt,
> because it was a lot nicer then. It may well be the case that it was.
> But we map what exists now, not what existed in the past and in
> rose-tinted memory. The same with county (and other administrative)
> boundaries. We map what is, not what was.



On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 3:49 PM Sean Blanchflower  wrote:

> Hi all,
> I'm smb1001 and have been adding the traditional county boundaries
> recently. DaveF kindly let me know of the discussion thread here so I've
> joined Talk-GB to add my side of things.
>
> I'm not alone in thinking the traditional county boundaries have a place
> on current maps. It's unfortunate here that these counties are known as
> 'historic counties' as this implies that they are no longer extant. The
> debate as to their current utility or their immutability is not one I feel
> is relevant here as there are arguments on both sides, but the Association
> of British Counties summarises it more succinctly than I could in any case
> (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_British_Counties and
> the many links therein).
>
> I have no intention of adding any "historic" boundaries beyond the
> counties. I settled on the (static) definition of "historic counties" used
> by the Ordnance Survey and UK government and was going to stop there.
>
> I would also have never started my efforts if the results would have
> littered invisible lines all over the map. Similarly, if there were an
> authoritative trace that could be imported then I'd agree that that also
> should be blocked. The reason I've been doing it is that 99% of the ways
> required to create the counties are already in OSM. Pretty much all I've
> been doing is adding existing (administrative) boundary ways to these new
> 'historic' relations alongside the 'ceremonial' and myriad 'administrative'.
>
> (As an aside, I would also have never started my efforts if I hadn't been
> inspired by finding that the same had been done for other countries.)
>
> I fully agree with Lester's comments on OHM in all this. Without the
> presence of the 'current' OSM database in OHM, it's impossible to get any
> traction there. For example I can't actually add the traditional counties
> to OHM without the current OSM administrative boundaries (county and
> parish). Then again, as he said, if the current OSM set were put there to
> do so, it ends up duplicating the site.
>
> I also agree with DaveF that to add every iteration of former boundaries
> is not for OSM, but I would argue that the addition of the traditional
> counties as defined by this current definition does not fall into that.
> After all, certain councils have already been erecting road signs
> indicating the presence of these county boundaries so why would we not
> reflect that.
>
> I begin to fear I've caused offence in my recent editing, so apologies if
> so. I'm just a keen OSM editor trying to add what I see as a valuable
> omission in its database.
>
> smb1001
>
>
>
>
>
___
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

2018-08-09 Thread Lester Caine

On 08/08/18 17:03, Nick Whitelegg wrote:


I think these things are at least partly a product of what generation 
you belong to.


I think one can include 'Middlesex' in that package? Just when will it 
cease to exist ;)


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - https://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - https://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
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

2018-08-08 Thread Mark Goodge



On 08/08/2018 17:05, Stephen Doerr wrote:

On 8 August 2018, at 15:50, Sean Blanchflower  wrote:

 >I begin to fear I've caused offence in my recent editing, so apologies 
if so. I'm just a keen OSM editor trying to add what I see as a valuable 
omission in its database.


I for one am glad to have the boundaries of the 'real' counties in OSM, 
so thank you for doing this.


I'm sorry, but this is complete and utter bullshit. The "historic" 
county boundaries are no more "real" than the current ones. They were, 
at the time, the administrative boundaries. They are no longer the 
administrative boundaries.


I do appreciate that there are matters where the historic boundaries are 
relevant (primarily genealogical research). But that's not really a 
mapping issue., And the emotional attachment to the pre-1974 boundaries 
is just that - emotion, not based on any objective assessment. And the 
fact that, in retrospect, the 1970s changes were over-reaching and did a 
lot of harm does not change that.


Describing the historic boundaries as "real" is like insisting that we 
map, say, the old Euston station the way it was before it was rebuilt, 
because it was a lot nicer then. It may well be the case that it was. 
But we map what exists now, not what existed in the past and in 
rose-tinted memory. The same with county (and other administrative) 
boundaries. We map what is, not what was.


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

2018-08-08 Thread Nick Whitelegg

... even though technically, it was not Greater Manchester when I was born, it 
was in my earliest memories.


Nick



From: Nick Whitelegg 
Sent: 08 August 2018 17:03
To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org; co...@thespillers.org.uk
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database


I think these things are at least partly a product of what generation you 
belong to.

I'm of the generation that was too young to remember pre-1974 but was well into 
my twenties by the next reorganisation. Consequently I think of Manchester as 
being in Greater Manchester (and that I was both born in and lived the first 5 
years or so of my life in Greater Manchester) and Bournemouth as being in 
Dorset, and not Hampshire.

But, on the other hand, I think of Southampton, where I live now, as firmly in 
Hampshire even though technically it's not part of HCC.

The only exceptions are that I think of Rutland as Rutland and Herefordshire 
and Worcestershire as their own counties - and not combined.

Basically, the current "ceremonial counties" correspond very closely to what 
county I think of something as being in!

Nick



From: Colin Spiller 
Sent: 08 August 2018 16:29:15
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

Here in Yorkshire, people are very possessive (if that's the right
word!) about the old county boundary (i.e. pre 1974). Many people are
very aware of the problem (as they see it) that certain parts of
Yorkshire have been transferred to (or 'stolen by') Lancashire, or other
counties. They still think of the 3 Ridings as current in some cases.

And Liverpool and Manchester are still parts of Lancashire according to
some!

Colin


On 08/08/18 10:55, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>
> On 07/08/2018 20:48, Dave F wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> User smb1001 is currently adding county boundary relations with
>> boundary=historic through out the UK:
>> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/ASf (May take a while to run)
>>
>> Changeset discussion:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/61410203
>>
>>  From the historic wiki page
>> "historic objects should not be mapped as it is outside of scope of OSM"
>>
>> Frankly I don't buy his comments. The problem is where to stop? Do we
>> have ever iteration of every boundary change since time immemorial?
>> Then what about buildings, roads, or coastline changes etc? The
>> database would become unmanageable for editors (it already is if
>> zoomed out too far).
>
> I agree that "historic" boundaries don't belong in OSM. They have
> value for historic researchers, but, as you say, that's not what OSM
> is about.
>
> It's also flat out incorrect to say that historic boundaries are
> "immutable". Although it is true that there were massive changes in
> the 1970s and a lot more since then, the idea that the historic (or
> "traditional") counties were stable throughout history is just
> myth-making. A lot of what people think of as the historic county
> boundaries are, in fact, a Victorian creation. And even they didn't
> leave them alone!
>
> I do think, though, that there's a case for including the current
> ceremonial and preserved county boundaries. These have a defined and
> relevant meaning here and now, even if it's a less common one than
> administrative boundaries such as counties, districts and parishes.
> Maybe the people adding historic boundaries to OSM could be nudged in
> that direction instead.
>
> Mark
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

--
Colin Spiller
co...@thespillers.org.uk


___
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

2018-08-08 Thread Stephen Doerr
On 8 August 2018, at 15:50, Sean Blanchflower  wrote:

>I begin to fear I've caused offence in my recent editing, so apologies if so. 
>I'm just a keen OSM editor trying to add what I see as a valuable omission in 
>its database.

I for one am glad to have the boundaries of the 'real' counties in OSM, so 
thank you for doing this.

Steve

___
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

2018-08-08 Thread Colin Spiller
Here in Yorkshire, people are very possessive (if that's the right 
word!) about the old county boundary (i.e. pre 1974). Many people are 
very aware of the problem (as they see it) that certain parts of 
Yorkshire have been transferred to (or 'stolen by') Lancashire, or other 
counties. They still think of the 3 Ridings as current in some cases.


And Liverpool and Manchester are still parts of Lancashire according to 
some!


Colin


On 08/08/18 10:55, Mark Goodge wrote:



On 07/08/2018 20:48, Dave F wrote:

Hi

User smb1001 is currently adding county boundary relations with 
boundary=historic through out the UK:

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/ASf (May take a while to run)

Changeset discussion:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/61410203

 From the historic wiki page
"historic objects should not be mapped as it is outside of scope of OSM"

Frankly I don't buy his comments. The problem is where to stop? Do we 
have ever iteration of every boundary change since time immemorial? 
Then what about buildings, roads, or coastline changes etc? The 
database would become unmanageable for editors (it already is if 
zoomed out too far).


I agree that "historic" boundaries don't belong in OSM. They have 
value for historic researchers, but, as you say, that's not what OSM 
is about.


It's also flat out incorrect to say that historic boundaries are 
"immutable". Although it is true that there were massive changes in 
the 1970s and a lot more since then, the idea that the historic (or 
"traditional") counties were stable throughout history is just 
myth-making. A lot of what people think of as the historic county 
boundaries are, in fact, a Victorian creation. And even they didn't 
leave them alone!


I do think, though, that there's a case for including the current 
ceremonial and preserved county boundaries. These have a defined and 
relevant meaning here and now, even if it's a less common one than 
administrative boundaries such as counties, districts and parishes. 
Maybe the people adding historic boundaries to OSM could be nudged in 
that direction instead.


Mark

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


--
Colin Spiller
co...@thespillers.org.uk


___
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

2018-08-08 Thread Sean Blanchflower
Hi all,
I'm smb1001 and have been adding the traditional county boundaries
recently. DaveF kindly let me know of the discussion thread here so I've
joined Talk-GB to add my side of things.

I'm not alone in thinking the traditional county boundaries have a place on
current maps. It's unfortunate here that these counties are known as
'historic counties' as this implies that they are no longer extant. The
debate as to their current utility or their immutability is not one I feel
is relevant here as there are arguments on both sides, but the Association
of British Counties summarises it more succinctly than I could in any case
(see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_British_Counties and the
many links therein).

I have no intention of adding any "historic" boundaries beyond the
counties. I settled on the (static) definition of "historic counties" used
by the Ordnance Survey and UK government and was going to stop there.

I would also have never started my efforts if the results would have
littered invisible lines all over the map. Similarly, if there were an
authoritative trace that could be imported then I'd agree that that also
should be blocked. The reason I've been doing it is that 99% of the ways
required to create the counties are already in OSM. Pretty much all I've
been doing is adding existing (administrative) boundary ways to these new
'historic' relations alongside the 'ceremonial' and myriad 'administrative'.

(As an aside, I would also have never started my efforts if I hadn't been
inspired by finding that the same had been done for other countries.)

I fully agree with Lester's comments on OHM in all this. Without the
presence of the 'current' OSM database in OHM, it's impossible to get any
traction there. For example I can't actually add the traditional counties
to OHM without the current OSM administrative boundaries (county and
parish). Then again, as he said, if the current OSM set were put there to
do so, it ends up duplicating the site.

I also agree with DaveF that to add every iteration of former boundaries is
not for OSM, but I would argue that the addition of the traditional
counties as defined by this current definition does not fall into that.
After all, certain councils have already been erecting road signs
indicating the presence of these county boundaries so why would we not
reflect that.

I begin to fear I've caused offence in my recent editing, so apologies if
so. I'm just a keen OSM editor trying to add what I see as a valuable
omission in its database.

smb1001
___
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

2018-08-08 Thread Lester Caine

On 08/08/18 13:54, Colin Smale wrote:
There are plenty of examples of "former" objects in OSM - closed pubs, 
railway alignments etc. They are only still there because they are 
perceived to have some kind of relevance in the present day. Can a case 
be made that these historic counties are still "relevant" today?


I'm listening to the steam trains pulling in and out of Broadway station 
at the moment. This was a 'disused' line and there was talk about 
removing that sort of data from OSM. The line out of Broadway goes on 
north and still has a designated use of 'disused railway'. I don't know 
if the line will ever be extended, but in some peoples minds it's on the 
cards as it could eventually link to Stratford Upon Avon. That end of 
the line has now been built on so a new terminus would have to stop 
short, but knowing where the line used to run through that house estate 
is interesting to some.


Even a pub has a place in the tracking of genealogical data and if one 
has some means of showing a current map with the location of previous 
events it's a useful tool. OHM is trying to do that, but since every 
change in OSM has to be mirrored to OHM I find this very counter 
productive ... YES there is a need for separate layers of data such as 
the battles of the second world war, but all should have a single base 
in OSM and where key parts of the two combine, the current OSM map 
continues to display them. Purely using OSM data to show the development 
of a town over time potentially needs very little 'historic' data other 
then 'start_date' ...


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - https://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - https://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
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

2018-08-08 Thread Dave F



On 08/08/2018 13:54, Colin Smale wrote:


On 2018-08-08 14:17, Dave F wrote:


Hi

On 08/08/2018 12:14, Colin Smale wrote:
If this (probably completely static) dataset is used as a baseline, 
at least these relations would have a verifiable source.


https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/help-and-support/products/boundary-line.html#Historicdownload

"The links above represent counties based on historic records and 
mapping circa 1888 and using the primary sources of the Local 
Government (England and Wales) Act 1888, the Local Government 
(Scotland) Act 1889 and the Sheriffs Act 1887. "




Those are fairly inaccurate snap shots of what thought to be accurate 
at that just date. As Mark G pointed out it's a ridiculous notion to 
believe those boundaries can be extrapolated back to "Saxon times".


They would be accurate according to the source (viz. OS). 1888 is of 
course nowhere near "Saxon times".


The contributor adding them has added no date & claims they're accurate 
back to the Saxon invasion. Which is ridiculous.


If the OS-provided data were to be used as the source of the "historic 
county boundaries" would that not be grounds for a possible compromise 
here?


Again, where to stop? No data is destroyed. OHM provides an equivalent 
database to store old data if needed.


There are plenty of examples of "former" objects in OSM - closed pubs, 
railway alignments etc. They are only still there because they are 
perceived to have some kind of relevance in the present day. Can a 
case be made that these historic counties are still "relevant" today?  
I would like to hear smb1001's take on this.


Pubs often reopen.
Disused/razed/abandoned railways should be removed from the OSM database 
*but* only if they're not tagged along with current features (cycleway, 
embankments, bridges etc)


smb1001 is aware of this discussion. His views are in the changeset 
comments.


Cheers
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

2018-08-08 Thread Lester Caine

On 08/08/18 12:59, Dave F wrote:
How often do you believe people will actually want historic data? 
Organizations archive for a reason. Consider your house, how things you 
don't use will get shoved to the back of the cupboard/shed.
I live in a Roman city, the editors struggle to display current data. 
Imagine what it would be like if *everything* was shown back to the days 
of Emperor Nero.


We have the same problem all over the place in keeping historic data 
accessible. The argument is always 'How many people will use it' or 
'Does it matter if we ignore that' :(


Even providing verifiable timestamps for historic events is a gamble 
since the timezone database hides verified data prior to 1970 'because 
it's outside the remit'! In which case one needs a reliable source for 
time offsets even as recently as the 2nd world war because those 
provided by TZ are known to be wrong ... but nobody provides it :(


The fact that there was Roman settlement in an area is very useful data 
for a planning department to know if a full archaeological report is 
needed. My own genealogical research would be helped if CURRENT data had 
a start_date and then one could see if a street being referenced 
actually existed at the time ... that is one for OSM rather than OHM 
except the street may have been 'moved' or renamed, at which time the 
historic element may become important. And knowing if the street on the 
current map was in a different county is also important data. But where 
do you go to find out.


There is no clear distinction as to what is current and what is historic 
data. They intertwine and a single documented view of all the data 
including that which is becoming history on a daily basis should be the 
target, rather than saying 'It's too difficult so lets ignore it'. It's 
not difficult for a computer to manage and if people have the desire to 
start filling in all the gaps then they should be supported, not told to 
go away?


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - https://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - https://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
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

2018-08-08 Thread Colin Smale
On 2018-08-08 14:17, Dave F wrote:

>> Hi
>> 
>> On 08/08/2018 12:14, Colin Smale wrote:
> 
>> If this (probably completely static) dataset is used as a baseline, at least 
>> these relations would have a verifiable source.
>> 
>> https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/help-and-support/products/boundary-line.html#Historicdownload
>> 
>> "The links above represent counties based on historic records and mapping 
>> circa 1888 and using the primary sources of the Local Government (England 
>> and Wales) Act 1888, the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889 and the 
>> Sheriffs Act 1887. "
> 
> Those are fairly inaccurate snap shots of what thought to be accurate at that 
> just date. As Mark G pointed out it's a ridiculous notion to believe those 
> boundaries can be  extrapolated back to "Saxon times".

They would be accurate according to the source (viz. OS). 1888 is of
course nowhere near "Saxon times". If the OS-provided data were to be
used as the source of the "historic county boundaries" would that not be
grounds for a possible compromise here? 

There are plenty of examples of "former" objects in OSM - closed pubs,
railway alignments etc. They are only still there because they are
perceived to have some kind of relevance in the present day. Can a case
be made that these historic counties are still "relevant" today?  I
would like to hear smb1001's take on this.___
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

2018-08-08 Thread Dave F

Hi

On 08/08/2018 12:14, Colin Smale wrote:


The OS publish boundaries for historic counties, so one could say 
these boundaries are the current boundaries for the historic counties.




To me that's an oxymoron.

If this (probably completely static) dataset is used as a baseline, at 
least these relations would have a verifiable source.


https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/help-and-support/products/boundary-line.html#Historicdownload

"The links above represent counties based on historic records and 
mapping circa 1888 and using the primary sources of the Local 
Government (England and Wales) Act 1888, the Local Government 
(Scotland) Act 1889 and the Sheriffs Act 1887. "




Those are fairly inaccurate snap shots of what thought to be accurate at 
that just date. As Mark G pointed out it's a ridiculous notion to 
believe those boundaries can be  extrapolated back to "Saxon times".


Cheers
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

2018-08-08 Thread Dave F



On 08/08/2018 12:05, Lester Caine wrote:

On 08/08/18 10:56, Dave F wrote:


On 08/08/2018 09:54, Lester Caine wrote:
we are now in a situation where much accurately mapped material is 
simply dumped when there is a change to the current situation.

1. it's not dumped, it's still in the database as a historic version.
2. Changes almost always increase the accuracy & detail of the database.


Going back through the change logs is not the easiest process? 


Overpass API QL language offers means to do it using version() & a 
couple of other commands


Isolating deletions that are due to historic changes rather than 
simple factual corrections also muddies the water. But making the link 
to OHM more organised would allow current valid data to be archived 
properly?


It's possible to upload using JOSM, I believe (haven't used it), but I 
agree, a more open gateway for transferring would be useful.




The 'delete' process should be handled in a manor more sensitive to 
the hard work that has gone before!


the vast majority of the material making up the historic data such 
as boundaries IS the same as the current 'live' data.


I'm unsure that's true, but if it were, why duplicate?


That was always my argument AGAINST OHM ... since much of the data 
making up boundaries has not changed, having to duplicate that 
information over to OHM, and then decide where material is current or 
historic means that IDEALLY OHM is a complete copy of the OSM 
database, but with the historic material easier to find than via 
change sets ... why not just manage a single database? People who 
don't want access to historic material simply ignore data which has 
'expired' via end_date.


How often do you believe people will actually want historic data? 
Organizations archive for a reason. Consider your house, how things you 
don't use will get shoved to the back of the cupboard/shed.
I live in a Roman city, the editors struggle to display current data. 
Imagine what it would be like if *everything* was shown back to the days 
of Emperor Nero.


Cheers
DaveF

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


  1   2   >