[Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Dave F]

On 08/08/2018 13:54, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> On 2018-08-08 14:17, Dave F wrote:
>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> On 08/08/2018 12:14, Colin Smale wrote:
>>> If this (probably completely static) dataset is used as a baseline, 
>>> at least these relations would have a verifiable source.
>>>
>>> https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/help-and-support/products/boundary-line.html#Historicdownload
>>>
>>> "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. "
>>>
>>
>> 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".
>>
> They would be accurate according to the source (viz. OS). 1888 is of 
> course nowhere near "Saxon times".

The contributor adding them has added no date & claims they're accurate 
back to the Saxon invasion. Which is ridiculous.

> 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?

Again, where to stop? No data is destroyed. OHM provides an equivalent 
database to store old data if needed.

> 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.

Pubs often reopen.
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)

smb1001 is aware of this discussion. His views are in the changeset 
comments.

Cheers
DaveF


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20180808/7e082035/attachment.html>