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

Dave F davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com
Sun Aug 26 20:56:44 UTC 2018

On 26/08/2018 21:47, Adam Snape wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 21:20 Mark Goodge, <mark at good-stuff.co.uk 
> <mailto: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.
>     Mark
> 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'.

It would be helpful if we ignored the fact they're named 'historic'. 
Everything is historic. That new sandwich shop that opened last week on 
the corner? It has a history of one week.

What's important is that they are not current.

> I feel I should stress at this point that we do map a fairly similar 
> set of boundaries, the so-called 'ceremonial counties'.

My understanding is these are separate from admin boundaries & current?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20180826/ee34fc5c/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Talk-GB mailing list