[Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database
davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com
Wed Aug 8 13:12:24 UTC 2018
On 08/08/2018 13:54, Colin Smale wrote:
> On 2018-08-08 14:17, Dave F wrote:
>>> 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.
>>> "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
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-GB