On 20/09/18 22:00, 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!
:-)
There is more than one mind to be 'made up'.
On some issues there may be many different ways of doing things, and
each person/mind might just decide such that all those different ways of
doing things are valid for them.
Many boundaries cannot be verified 'on the ground' .. some of them are
on water ;-).
I have one near me that has various wooden signs .. they may be
separated by a few miles. Some sit inside the real boundary by some 10
yards. Some sit on the boundary. They don't occur at every place where
the boundary changes direction .. but only where a track or path crosses
the boundary. It was mapped as well as it could be prior to obtaining
permission to use the official data. Before the official data .. you
could not be precise as to where the boundary was, so verifying it was a
mater of how much you cared and how far you wanted to push your limits.
Most mappers simply left it alone, a few altered it where they had some
local knowledge, but these were very small movements.
Many things don't render on maps ... historic county boundaries may be
one of them.
If they don't render most people won't be worried by them.
Those that care for them will check them.
Those that think they should not be in OSM will try to remove them.
Provided they are documented on the wiki I'd leave them in.
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
