<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 08/08/2018 13:54, Colin Smale wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:b6fb0b797f9eb2ba03670bfd07f9187a@xs4all.nl">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>On 2018-08-08 14:17, Dave F wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left:
#1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0">
<div class="pre" style="margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family:
monospace">
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left:
#1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0">Hi<br>
<br>
<span style="white-space: nowrap;">On 08/08/2018 12:14, Colin Smale wrote:</span></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left:
#1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0">If this (probably completely
static) dataset is used as a baseline, at least these
relations would have a verifiable source.<br>
<br>
<span style="white-space: nowrap;"><a
href="https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/help-and-support/products/boundary-line.html#Historicdownload"
target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/help-and-support/products/boundary-line.html#Historicdownload</a></span><br>
<br>
"The links above represent counties based on historic
records and mapping circa 1888 and using the primary sources
of the Local Government (England and Wales) Act 1888, the
Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889 and the Sheriffs Act
1887. "<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Those are fairly inaccurate snap shots of what thought to be
accurate at that just date. As Mark G pointed out it's a
ridiculous notion to believe those boundaries can be
extrapolated back to "Saxon times".<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="pre" style="margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family:
monospace">They would be accurate according to the source (viz.
OS). 1888 is of course nowhere near "Saxon times". </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
The contributor adding them has added no date & claims they're
accurate back to the Saxon invasion. Which is ridiculous. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:b6fb0b797f9eb2ba03670bfd07f9187a@xs4all.nl">
<div class="pre" style="margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family:
monospace">If the OS-provided data were to be used as the source
of the "historic county boundaries" would that not be grounds
for a possible compromise here?</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Again, where to stop? No data is destroyed. OHM provides an
equivalent database to store old data if needed.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:b6fb0b797f9eb2ba03670bfd07f9187a@xs4all.nl">
<div class="pre" style="margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family:
monospace"> </div>
<div class="pre" style="margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family:
monospace">There are plenty of examples of "former" objects in
OSM - closed pubs, railway alignments etc. They are only still
there because they are perceived to have some kind of relevance
in the present day. Can a case be made that these historic
counties are still "relevant" today? I would like to hear
smb1001's take on this.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Pubs often reopen.<br>
Disused/razed/abandoned railways should be removed from the OSM
database *but* only if they're not tagged along with current
features (cycleway, embankments, bridges etc)<br>
<br>
smb1001 is aware of this discussion. His views are in the changeset
comments.<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
DaveF<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>