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

Adam Snape adam.c.snape at gmail.com
Sun Aug 26 12:04:42 UTC 2018

I think there's certainly an argument for including the traditional
boundaries. There's certainly enough people arguing the pros for us to say
that there's no clear consensus against it. As you say, there is a certain
culture of tolerance within OSM that would be at odds with removal.

I do, however, take some issue with the source chosen. The OS's dataset is
based upon the administrative counties formed after the local government
act 1888. Whilst no doubt very useful for genealogistst or those with an
interest in 1888-1974 administrative history, the LGA really marked the
first significant divergence between counties as administrative entities
and their traditional boundaries.

As the aim of the exercise would appear to be mapping the traditional
boundaries rather than mapping obsolete administrative boundaries, I echo
the earlier suggestion that the Historic Counties Trust's dataset would be
a more appropriate source.

Kind regards,


On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 11:47 Colin Smale, <colin.smale at xs4all.nl> wrote:

> It has gone all quiet here, and in the mean time smb001 has been making
> steady progress across England. I take it that means acquiescence to these
> historic county boundaries being in OSM.
> I guess we should get smb001 to write up the tagging in the wiki.
> Or is there a discussion going on elsewhere that I am not aware of?
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180826/7b51d107/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-GB mailing list