[Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database
adam.c.snape at gmail.com
Sun Aug 26 20:47:14 UTC 2018
On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 21:20 Mark Goodge, <mark at good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> I think it's slightly unfortunate that OSM uses the tag 'historic' for
> something that's different to what we are discussing here. As well as
> being potentially ambiguous, it may also encourage people to add
> boundaries that are "historic" in the sense used used by proponents of
> the traditional English counties.
I quite agree. Much of the most strident opposition seems to be to adding
an historical (ie. now obsolete) feature. Where proponents are using the
term 'historic' they mean 'of long-standing importance'.
I feel I should stress at this point that we do map a fairly similar set of
boundaries, the so-called 'ceremonial counties'. These are basically a
modern attempt at providing a set of geographic county areas which don't
strictly follow county council administrative areas eg. the ceremonial
county of Nottinghamshire actually contains Nottingham!
If our mapping of boundary relations should only extend to administrative
functions we probably ought to reconsider our inclusion of ceremonial
counties. If we can see the value to the database of a county as a
geographic concept divorced from administration there might well be a case
for including our traditional counties.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-GB