Corravilla: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5705909
On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Patrick Matthews <[email protected]> wrote: > Rory, Dave, > > My inclination is the opposite - there are plenty of situations where you > have townlands "split" between civil parishes in exactly the same way as > the ones you mention but where one "part" being in one ED and another in a > different ED means that the two are shown as separate on the post-1898 > maps. (There can also be false positives where two completely different > townlands in different parishes but with the same name happen to be in the > same ED, e.g. Corravilla in east Cavan, where two townlands, one in > Shercock parish and one in Knockbride, happen to be in the same ED and are > represented in the maps as a single townland, but have different postal > addresses and are listed separately in the electoral register.) > > The methodology of the original Ordnance Survey, for what it's worth, was > to treat each "part" of the townland as a separate entity, and they're > still recorded as separate entities in the 1901 and 1911 census reports. > > Baronies split by counties (e.g. Fore, Rathdown) should be treated > separately as they were/are county subdivisions. Civil parishes and > baronies were always independent of each other so the split doesn't matter > there. > > Regards, > > Paddy. > > > On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Dave Corley <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I have a vague recollection of this being discussed way back. The issue is >> not just with townlands if I recall correctly. >> >> I think there may also be cp's split by baronies and baronies split by >> counties and so on. >> >> Your logic seems sound to me, but then again I never got to doing cp's. >> >> Dave >> On 29 May 2016 10:40, "Rory McCann" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> > Hash: SHA1 >> > >> > Hi all, >> > >> > A while ago I mentioned a possible problem with the Logainm data >> > import, where 2+ townlands were getting the same logainm reference[1]. >> > Upon closer investigation, I don't think this is a bug with the import >> > process, but a question of "Is a townland is one townland or many >> > townlands?". >> > >> > Consider Graiguealug townland in Carlow. It's in OSM as 3 different >> > townlands: OSM ids https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2196774 >> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2274862 >> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2274863 all touching each >> > other. Each is in a different civil parish[2]. >> > >> > However Logainm only has one entry http://www.logainm.ie/en/3531 which >> > is in 3 different civil parishes. Logainm allows one townland to be in >> > more than one CP. If you look at the GSGS map, only one townland is >> > shown on the map, and the total area (~400 acres) is similar to the >> > total off the 3 townlands in OSM. >> > >> > It looks like one townlands was split into 3 townlands so that each >> > townland would be in one and only one CP. >> > >> > However I don't think this is the right approach. I think the OSM >> > philosophy of "One Feature, One OSM Element"[3] should apply, and that >> > those 3 townlands should be merged into 1. The CP boundaries should >> > physically stay where they are, but they will not line up with a >> > townland boundary. I seen other examples of townlands crossing CP >> > boundaries and have mapped them as one townland, with a CP border >> > going through the middle. >> > >> > I'm tempted to merge townlands like this into one townland. What do >> > people think? >> > >> > Rory >> > >> > [1] >> > >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ie/2016-March/001499.html >> > [2] Townlands.ie: >> > >> https://www.townlands.ie/carlow/forth/templepeter/templepeter/graiguealug/ >> > >> > >> https://www.townlands.ie/carlow/forth/tullowmagimma/templepeter/graiguealug/ >> > https://www.townlands.ie/carlow/forth/nurney/templepeter/graiguealug/ >> > [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> > Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) >> > >> > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJXSri4AAoJEOrWdmeZivv2Lc8H/AoZcBrdbT3u5y2vvKBnKh8J >> > BKP48p0sVAyMyDAWl3nQ88kqwuHcNcYYBt+aWwfDAeOyBs63OJQ1dlcw1+9EW3iL >> > wxkauYKAvVNEd1m7sHBFWwIdxhmRUfinwrHyNhoIFL84/bExPAs4KCe1epFYwqNd >> > hSFP5lnRuaikct5eEkP9uTr0tGDRkYLzwGOwcj30xZSz89dB786bc/YR834kgigi >> > kYtjL6O+uEZ05Xb1M2kSyzR+LdmEW3tFYEu1RHjxlMKIgOedUAF0+RdEF0qOOmPe >> > optVIDIyxFuTk0BTsqITb05uyPHss58zamz0ldnZBh0AqAg8JTQjxl9/IDxhFqw= >> > =z0F7 >> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Talk-ie mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-ie mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie >> > > _______________________________________________ Talk-ie mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
