[OSM-talk-ie] I have a question about the logainm script, How can it handle a barony that>

[Cormac O Murchú]

I have found literally 100s of missing townlands along the west coast in
recent weeks. These have no logainm:ref field
 
 
>I have a question about the logainm script, How can it handle a barony that

>crosses a county border? For example, Barony of Ross crosses the

>Galway-Mayo border as one relation. This relation has one logainm tag for

>Ross in Mayo (logainm:ref = 172) but there are separate loganim ref numbers

>for Ross in Galway (logainm:ref = 85) on the logainm website. Can we

>somehow add both ref numbers to the Barony relation? something like

>logainm:ref=172;85, or what do you suggest? It seems that the script

>assumes everything is nested inside counties but if baronies/civil parishes

>cross county borders, then they have two logainm ref numbers.

 

It is ONE barony but in 2 counties and with 2 refs in that case. 

 

 

logainm:ref:172

logainm:ref_1:85

 

Note that I have added census1901:ref fields to a lot of EDs as well . This
is a number such as census1901:ref=78 to allow us to find census data as ED
names are not unique and a county can have 2 versions of the same name.
Galway  even has 3 Eds named Ballynakill  

 

I added no census1911:ref fields but these are different again as some new
EDs were created between 1901 and 1911

 

Also note that there are TYPOS and misspellings in OSI Open Data townlands
and Electoral Divisions

 

The OSI data has Movode ED inn Galway which is properly Moyode

Also Gleneganon ED in Donegal which is correctly Glennagannon

 

Don’t assume  OSI data is canonical either