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

Dave F davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com
Wed Aug 8 13:27:51 UTC 2018

On 08/08/2018 14:02, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 08/08/18 12:59, Dave F wrote:
>> How often do you believe people will actually want historic data? 
>> Organizations archive for a reason. Consider your house, how things 
>> you don't use will get shoved to the back of the cupboard/shed.
>> I live in a Roman city, the editors struggle to display current data. 
>> Imagine what it would be like if *everything* was shown back to the 
>> days of Emperor Nero.
> We have the same problem all over the place in keeping historic data 
> accessible. The argument is always 'How many people will use it' or 
> 'Does it matter if we ignore that' :(
> Even providing verifiable timestamps for historic events is a gamble 
> since the timezone database hides verified data prior to 1970 'because 
> it's outside the remit'! In which case one needs a reliable source for 
> time offsets even as recently as the 2nd world war because those 
> provided by TZ are known to be wrong ... but nobody provides it :(
> The fact that there was Roman settlement in an area is very useful 
> data for a planning department to know if a full archaeological report 
> is needed.

I agree and point out that that's *exactly* what OHM was set up for.

> My own genealogical research would be helped if CURRENT data had a 
> start_date and then one could see if a street being referenced 
> actually existed at the time ... that is one for OSM rather than OHM

Date tagging would apply to both OSM & OHM entities.

> except the street may have been 'moved' or renamed, at which time the 
> historic element may become important. And knowing if the street on 
> the current map was in a different county is also important data. But 
> where do you go to find out.

By comparing OSM with OHM.

> There is no clear distinction as to what is current and what is 
> historic data.

Sorry but that's wrong. If it's physical object & you can see it, it's 
current. If it's a human construct (such as boundaries) and listed as 
'current' in the Authorities documents as current, then it's current.

> They intertwine and a single documented view of all the data including 
> that which is becoming history on a daily basis should be the target, 
> rather than saying 'It's too difficult so lets ignore it'. It's not 
> difficult for a computer to manage and if people have the desire to 
> start filling in all the gaps then they should be supported, not told 
> to go away?

All data is still available no matter where it's stored.

I suspect I'll be repeating myself, so I'm out for now.


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list