I can't resist mentioning the boundary of Wales and England, north of Chester. Historically this followed the River Dee. However in a process starting in 1737 the Dee was canalised. This resulted in the main channel moving from the English side of the estuary to the Welsh. There was massive change with ports, and even coal mines closing on one side and expanding on the other. There was also a huge amount of new land created as the estuary was drained.
The border however remained where it had been and is now several miles from the river. Sorry for this diversion, but thought it may be of interest. Lots of more info easily found on line. Chris Smith Allotmentcyclist. On Sun, 22 Jun 2025, 10:33 SK53, <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, basically it makes any future maintenance harder, and increases > chance of inadvertent node drags by someone thinking they are editing one > rather than two features. > > On old channels getting preserved as boundaries, there are numerous > historical examples around Nottingham (mainly rationalised in 1953). See > https://en.osm.town/@SK53/114180197691133748. > > Jerry > > On Sun, 22 Jun 2025, 10:09 Daniel Hatton via Talk-GB, < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On 21/06/2025 20:42, Daniel Hatton wrote: >> >> > OK, proposal: why don't I start by tweaking the relevant watercourses >> to >> > follow their paths from the OS OpenMap Local layer on iD (with the >> > standard attribution tag for that source, of course)? I'm presuming >> > that layer is specified on the same grid as the OS Boundary-Line data >> > and therefore doesn't need any alignment before tracing from it. >> > (By "the relevant watercourses", I mean ways #5544801, #93133917, and >> > #85357655. >> >> Right, that's done as changeset #167930537. >> >> Now, what do we think about the next bit, heading downstream, ways >> #114543125 and #114330997? Here, it looks like someone has taken the >> boundary=administrative features imported from OS Boundary-Line and >> added a waterway=river tag (and a name and an alt_name) to them. That's >> not a ridiculous thing to do, since the higher-resolution parish >> boundary mapping on the OS Election Maps site definitely does have the >> parish boundaries in this area follow the centreline of the river. But >> I have a feeling it's not going to be popular here. >> >> -- >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Dan Hatton >> >> Dr. Daniel C. Hatton >> >> E-mail: [email protected] >> >> Signal: dch.28 >> SIP: [email protected] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
