[Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database
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'
> 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'.
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...
More information about the Talk-GB