On 26/08/2018 21:47, Adam Snape wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 21:20 Mark Goodge, <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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. MarkI 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 [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
