> Any thoughts? If there is a way of tagging these so they're ignored by Nominatim etc so address/location searches only show up modern counties, unless specifically searched for, and no occlusion occurs, then yes. Otherwise, you might get the following results:
Sheffield South Yorkshire West Riding of Yorkshire or, the even worse (depending on your loyalties): Sheffield South Yorkshire Derbyshire etc I'd very much guard against that. Regards, *Paul* On 13 February 2017 at 12:23, Adam Snape <[email protected]> wrote: > Thinking about points raised by a couple of respondents. Firstly, the > thorny issue of whether to record features which no longer exist; > secondly, whether it is actually possible to give precise boundaries to > historic/traditional counties and, thirdly, the source(s) which could be > used for information. > > 1. Whilst the administrative counties based upon the historic counties > have been abolished or changed significantly in recent decades, successive > governments have stated that the traditional counties have never been > abolished and continue to exist along their ancient boundaries. Most > recently: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/eric-pickles-celebrate- > st-george-and-englands-traditional-counties > > 2. The counties existed centuries before detailed maps and thus their > boundaries are usually defined by geographic features such as rivers, > hilltops, watersheds. The boundaries were very stable, with the only even > vaguely significant changes being the 19th century efforts to remove > detached parts of counties (sometimes for reasons lost in time a parish > might notionally belong to another county). When the administrative county > councils were created their areas sometimes differed slightly from the > traditional county where it would cause administrative problems (usually > where the county boundary bisected a major settlement). > > 3. Luckily the Historic Counties Trust has detailed a sensible standard > definition of the historic counties and mapped their boundaries. These have > been released for reuse as shape files: http://www.county-borders.co.uk/ > . I propose making use of the 'A Standard' shape files (the traditional > county boundaries ignoring detached parts) which should be ideal for our > purposes. > > Any thoughts? > > Adam > > > On 10 February 2017 at 15:03, Lester Caine <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 09/02/17 23:40, Adam Snape wrote: >> > My view was that - like teh Irish Townlands project - there's still >> > a cultural relevance to these historical units and I thought it a good >> > potential use of boundary=historical, but if the consensus is that it's >> > not a good idea then that's fine. >> >> Anomalies such as 'Middlesex' sort of challenge any rule especially when >> there is no 'real' boundary to map at all. But the ability to access >> historic material, the vast majority of which is still current remains a >> sticking point. end_date is still the right way of handling the changes >> that are due with the NEXT round of boundary changes, so including >> previous historic changes in that data still makes sense while there is >> no reliable way of archive the data to another database ... >> >> -- >> Lester Caine - G8HFL >> ----------------------------- >> Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact >> L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk >> EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ >> Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk >> Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
