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.


Talk-GB mailing list

Reply via email to