[Talk-GB] Traditional Counties and Vice Counties

[Chris Hodges]

Overall I agree: the way I see it is that each set of boundaries would 
be very useful to a very small group, so not very useful on average.


I reckon if someone wanted to take on a project of mapping a certain set 
of boundaries that would be great; until they do (under a suitable 
license of course, ideally supported by decent evidence) we shouldn't 
need to worry about it.  Except who's best placed to host the work in 
progress?


The London/Kent example is close to home (figuratively, I only grew up 
around there).  Legacy use of postal counties is a big part of the 
problem, for example Orpington in the _London_ borough of Bromley, but 
people still give their addresses as in Kent because it was correct in 
the 90s!




On 12/01/2021 09:49, Andrew Black wrote:
>
> On 11/01/2021 12:09, Chris Hodges wrote:
>> The problem is each application uses a subtly (or not so subtly) 
>> different set.
>>
>>
>> While it would be nice to have the boundaries in the data, it would 
>> be a huge effort to get them in bearing in mind the need to cross 
>> reference the boundaries that were in force when each use was set 
>> up.  And that's on top of the complexity of how to represent the 
>> data, without too many duplicates: is the birding county of Avon 
>> exactly  the same as the old postal county of Avon? Probably not 
>> because postal counties were odd.  Then there's the cricketing county 
>> of Gloucestershire, with the ground in Bristol - which was in 
>> Gloucestershire when the club was founded, before Avon existed.
>>
> This would be a big undertaking and frankly not that useful (IMHO). In 
> practice I think the boundaries are a bit fuzzy. Refer the honourable 
> gentleman to the discussion that postal counties where never quite the 
> same as admin one!
>
> A (non) management/ geeky summary is that concepts like Kent, 
> Middlesex exist in multiple namespaces of similar concepts... This has 
> come up in other areas of my interest - local history research.
>
> A very quick stab at the "onion layers" of London is here 
> https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1UPYKGlzNAgZOO7yUqBZP4tWK7c0vzRuxcZNkdf5WOvc/edit 
> The ones in Red are the concepts that I think cause problems - former 
> postal counties in bits of London where peple are in denial about 
> living in london (Kent actually!). I am going to have a got at 
> redrawing this with a time basis...
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> On 11/01/2021 11:31, Andrew Black wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/01/2021 00:33, Robert Skedgell via Talk-GB wrote:
>>>> Another example of a niche use of traditional counties is sport. For
>>>> athletics purposes. I was born in Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands and
>>>> live in Stratford, London, but can compete in county championships in
>>>> Warwickshire or Essex.
>>>
>>> I think there are loads of similar instances.  I have just joined 
>>> the ramblers (just before LD3!). The Bromley branch is in Kent not  
>>> London.
>>>
>>> I think there are a number of issues in different parts of country
>>>
>>> 1. "Middle aged counties" like Avon and Cleveland that have gone but 
>>> the old regime has not  quite been reinstated.
>>>
>>> 2. Areas in london that were never part of the London postal 
>>> district but are now in greater london,  I have given up arguing 
>>> that Bromley is not in Kent.
>>>
>>> 3. Possibly similar  issues in metropolitan counties in W midlands, 
>>> G Manchester, former yorkshire....
>>>
>>> Not sure there is any easy answer to this.  I recall a discussion 
>>> about it during August a few years back (remember reading it whilst 
>>> on holiday!). Can't remember the details
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 08/01/2021 10:59, Chris Hodges 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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