<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} </style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
I thought Bristol was in the "City and County of Bristol" before Avon existed? Not saying I'm right, I just thought this was the case.</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Nick</div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div id="Signature">
<div>
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper" dir="ltr" style="color:rgb(0,0,0); font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt">
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"></p>
<div style="margin:0px"><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="appendonsend"></div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> Chris Hodges <chris@c-hodges.co.uk><br>
<b>Sent:</b> 11 January 2021 12:09<br>
<b>To:</b> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org <talk-gb@openstreetmap.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Talk-GB] Traditional Counties and Vice Counties</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="BodyFragment"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;">
<div class="PlainText">The problem is each application uses a subtly (or not so subtly)
<br>
different set.<br>
<br>
<br>
While it would be nice to have the boundaries in the data, it would be a <br>
huge effort to get them in bearing in mind the need to cross reference <br>
the boundaries that were in force when each use was set up. And that's <br>
on top of the complexity of how to represent the data, without too many <br>
duplicates: is the birding county of Avon exactly the same as the old <br>
postal county of Avon? Probably not because postal counties were odd. <br>
Then there's the cricketing county of Gloucestershire, with the ground <br>
in Bristol - which was in Gloucestershire when the club was founded, <br>
before Avon existed.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 11/01/2021 11:31, Andrew Black wrote:<br>
><br>
> On 11/01/2021 00:33, Robert Skedgell via Talk-GB wrote:<br>
>> Another example of a niche use of traditional counties is sport. For<br>
>> athletics purposes. I was born in Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands and<br>
>> live in Stratford, London, but can compete in county championships in<br>
>> Warwickshire or Essex.<br>
><br>
> I think there are loads of similar instances. I have just joined the <br>
> ramblers (just before LD3!). The Bromley branch is in Kent not London.<br>
><br>
> I think there are a number of issues in different parts of country<br>
><br>
> 1. "Middle aged counties" like Avon and Cleveland that have gone but <br>
> the old regime has not quite been reinstated.<br>
><br>
> 2. Areas in london that were never part of the London postal district <br>
> but are now in greater london, I have given up arguing that Bromley <br>
> is not in Kent.<br>
><br>
> 3. Possibly similar issues in metropolitan counties in W midlands, G <br>
> Manchester, former yorkshire....<br>
><br>
> Not sure there is any easy answer to this. I recall a discussion <br>
> about it during August a few years back (remember reading it whilst on <br>
> holiday!). Can't remember the details<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>> On 08/01/2021 10:59, Chris Hodges wrote:<br>
>>> Traditional counties (for some value of "traditional", that's not the<br>
>>> same as ceremonial) are still used for some niche purposes. This is<br>
>>> particularly obvious to me living in Avon, which is neither current nor<br>
>>> ceremonial.<br>
>>><br>
>>> One example is wildlife records - here's the British Trust for<br>
>>> Ornithology's list of counties:<br>
>>><br>
>>> <a href="https://www.bto.org/our-science/projects/birdtrack/bird-recording/county-bird-recorders">
https://www.bto.org/our-science/projects/birdtrack/bird-recording/county-bird-recorders</a>
<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Whether, and how, we should map these is tricky. I'm not sure anyone<br>
>>> else has. I had hoped to find a bird records county map to demonstrate,<br>
>>> but failed to do so<br>
>>><br>
>>> Chris<br>
>>><br>
>>> On 08/01/2021 10:34, Andy Townsend wrote:<br>
>>>> On 08/01/2021 09:00, Mark Goodge wrote:<br>
>>>>> Secondly, there's no such thing as "the" traditional county<br>
>>>>> boundaries anyway. They were fluid, and subject to change. The<br>
>>>>> Victorians, in particular, were inveterate tinkerers with local<br>
>>>>> government and were forever tweaking the boundaries, a little here<br>
>>>>> and a little there. So any traditional county boundary data can only<br>
>>>>> ever be a snapshot of what the boundaries were at any particular<br>
>>>>> point in time. And there's no consensus about which is the most<br>
>>>>> "correct" snapshot to use. Even the Historic Counties Trust, which<br>
>>>>> aims to promote awareness of the traditional counties, offers<br>
>>>>> boundary data in different definitions. We can't possibly include all<br>
>>>>> of them in OSM, but picking just one of them means making an<br>
>>>>> editorial view as to the most appropriate snapshot. In the absence of<br>
>>>>> an agreed traditional county standard for OSM, leaving it up to<br>
>>>>> individual mappers will inevitably result in inconsistencies.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>> I think (and I'm guessing a bit here) that the "traditional" ones<br>
>>>> partly in OSM are the immediately-pre-1974 ones. Modelling the<br>
>>>> pre-1974 changes sounds like something best done in OpenHistoricalMap,<br>
>>>> and to be honest sounds like a nice lockdown project for someone<br>
>>>> interested in such things.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I can also see where you're coming from about whether the traditional<br>
>>>> ones should be in OSM at all. In some cases the boundary is<br>
>>>> signposted (the "traditional East Riding" at Stamford Bridge in<br>
>>>> Yorkshire certainly is), and in many cases boundaries will follow<br>
>>>> natural features that haven't moved, but in some cases (e.g. Crayke,<br>
>>>> formerly a Durham Exclave until some early Victorian tinkering, now in<br>
>>>> Yorkshire, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bettss-Crayke-map.png">
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bettss-Crayke-map.png</a> )<br>
>>>> I don't think they do.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Best Regards,<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Andy<br>
>>>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Talk-GB mailing list<br>
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<br>
>> <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Talk-GB mailing list<br>
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<br>
> <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-GB mailing list<br>
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</body>
</html>