[Talk-GB] Traditional Counties and Vice Counties

[Ian Caldwell]

These counties, like Avon, created by Local Government Act 1972  in 1974
seem to still exist for fire services
https://www.nationalfirechiefs.org.uk/Fire-and-Rescue-Services as well as
used by other oragnisations like the BTO.

I suspect those that have been abolished can be defined as a collection of
current councils.  I do not think these should be in OSM. They can be
constructed from the current councils.





Ian


On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 at 11:01, Chris Hodges <chris at c-hodges.co.uk> wrote:

> Traditional counties (for some value of "traditional", that's not the
> same as ceremonial) are still used for some niche purposes. This is
> particularly obvious to me living in Avon, which is neither current nor
> ceremonial.
>
> One example is wildlife records - here's the British Trust for
> Ornithology's list of counties:
>
>
> https://www.bto.org/our-science/projects/birdtrack/bird-recording/county-bird-recorders
>
> Whether, and how, we should map these is tricky.  I'm not sure anyone
> else has. I had hoped to find a bird records county map to demonstrate,
> but failed to do so
>
> Chris
>
> On 08/01/2021 10:34, Andy Townsend wrote:
> > On 08/01/2021 09:00, Mark Goodge wrote:
> >>
> >> Secondly, there's no such thing as "the" traditional county
> >> boundaries anyway. They were fluid, and subject to change. The
> >> Victorians, in particular, were inveterate tinkerers with local
> >> government and were forever tweaking the boundaries, a little here
> >> and a little there. So any traditional county boundary data can only
> >> ever be a snapshot of what the boundaries were at any particular
> >> point in time. And there's no consensus about which is the most
> >> "correct" snapshot to use. Even the Historic Counties Trust, which
> >> aims to promote awareness of the traditional counties, offers
> >> boundary data in different definitions. We can't possibly include all
> >> of them in OSM, but picking just one of them means making an
> >> editorial view as to the most appropriate snapshot. In the absence of
> >> an agreed traditional county standard for OSM, leaving it up to
> >> individual mappers will inevitably result in inconsistencies.
> >>
> > I think (and I'm guessing a bit here) that the "traditional" ones
> > partly in OSM are the immediately-pre-1974 ones.  Modelling the
> > pre-1974 changes sounds like something best done in OpenHistoricalMap,
> > and to be honest sounds like a nice lockdown project for someone
> > interested in such things.
> >
> > I can also see where you're coming from about whether the traditional
> > ones should be in OSM at all.  In some cases the boundary is
> > signposted (the "traditional East Riding" at Stamford Bridge in
> > Yorkshire certainly is), and in many cases boundaries will follow
> > natural features that haven't moved, but in some cases (e.g. Crayke,
> > formerly a Durham Exclave until some early Victorian tinkering, now in
> > Yorkshire, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bettss-Crayke-map.png )
> > I don't think they do.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Andy
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210108/fea9c4d2/attachment.htm>