[Talk-us-massachusetts] perambulating bounds

[Alan & Ruth Bragg]

Greg's comment "Why historic?" interested me.

Thoreau wrote this paragraph
<https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwTaTzE7VdWUTDVQWXVwZDExRTg/view?usp=sharing>
in 1851 about perambulating the bounds. He said the present "split stones"
replaced the pile of stones in 1829.
That's historic enough for me.

My stone <http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/329248057> is now tagged (Greg
got me interested in alternative tags)

description=split stone with chiseled C B inscription
format=squared_stone
height=3'2"
historic=boundary_stone
inscription=B C
man_made=survey_point
material=granite_stone
name=Boundary Stone
start_date=1829
survey:date=1970

​I guess I should think about wiki data and a photograph.​

Alan

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com> wrote:

>
> "Alan & Ruth Bragg" <alan.ruth.bragg at gmail.com> writes:
>
> > One of the Bedford/Concord markers <https://goo.gl/photos/QN5jRUJ
> 3bgtgoQEt7>
> > bears painted survey dates of 55 and 70.
> >
> > I added this stone
> > <http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4783742794#map=16/42.4807/-71.3180>
> to
> > "Open Street Map" with tags historic=boundary_stone, inscription="B C",
> > source=survey and description=Granite Post
> > Alan Bragg
>
> Why historic?  These stones are official markers with current legal
> standing.   I would tend to man_made=survey_point.   (Some current
> features have historic value, but these are not merely historic.)
>
> And if the most recent date is 70, you should hassle your selectmen, but
> don't be surprised if you get appointed and have to dig that last report
> out of the town vault!
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us-massachusetts/attachments/20170915/de46c83a/attachment.html>