[Talk-GB] Traditional/Historic Counties

[Paul Berry]

> Any thoughts?

If there is a way of tagging these so they're ignored by Nominatim etc so
address/location searches only show up modern counties, unless specifically
searched for, and no occlusion occurs, then yes. Otherwise, you might get
the following results:

Sheffield
South Yorkshire
West Riding of Yorkshire

or, the even worse (depending on your loyalties):

Sheffield
South Yorkshire
Derbyshire

etc

I'd very much guard against that.

Regards,
*Paul*


On 13 February 2017 at 12:23, Adam Snape <adam.c.snape at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thinking about points raised by a couple of respondents. Firstly, the
> thorny issue of whether to record features which no longer exist;
> secondly, whether it is actually possible to give precise boundaries to
> historic/traditional counties and, thirdly, the source(s) which could be
> used for information.
>
> 1. Whilst the administrative counties based upon the historic counties
> have been abolished or changed significantly in recent decades, successive
> governments have stated that the traditional counties have never been
> abolished and continue to exist along their ancient boundaries. Most
> recently: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/eric-pickles-celebrate-
> st-george-and-englands-traditional-counties
>
> 2. The counties existed centuries before detailed maps and thus their
> boundaries are usually defined by geographic features such as rivers,
> hilltops, watersheds. The boundaries were very stable, with the only even
> vaguely significant changes being the 19th century efforts to remove
> detached parts of counties (sometimes for reasons lost in time a parish
> might notionally belong to another county). When the administrative county
> councils were created their areas sometimes differed slightly from the
> traditional county where it would cause administrative problems (usually
> where the county boundary bisected a major settlement).
>
> 3. Luckily the Historic Counties Trust has detailed a sensible standard
> definition of the historic counties and mapped their boundaries. These have
> been released for reuse as shape files: http://www.county-borders.co.uk/
> . I propose making use of the 'A Standard' shape files (the traditional
> county boundaries ignoring detached parts) which should be ideal for our
> purposes.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Adam
>
>
> On 10 February 2017 at 15:03, Lester Caine <lester at lsces.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 09/02/17 23:40, Adam Snape wrote:
>> > My view was that - like teh Irish Townlands project - there's still
>> > a cultural relevance to these historical units and I thought it a good
>> > potential use of boundary=historical, but if the consensus is that it's
>> > not a good idea then that's fine.
>>
>> Anomalies such as 'Middlesex' sort of challenge any rule especially when
>> there is no 'real' boundary to map at all. But the ability to access
>> historic material, the vast majority of which is still current remains a
>> sticking point. end_date is still the right way of handling the changes
>> that are due with the NEXT round of boundary changes, so including
>> previous historic changes in that data still makes sense while there is
>> no reliable way of archive the data to another database ...
>>
>> --
>> Lester Caine - G8HFL
>> -----------------------------
>> Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
>> L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
>> EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
>> Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
>> Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20170213/cbd75a2b/attachment.html>