Traditional Counties and Vice Counties

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
19 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Traditional Counties and Vice Counties

Andy Townsend
I'm just writing this just as a "for info" in case anyone is interested,
not as a "someone must fix this now!" kind of thing.

I recently noticed a few problems with National Parks and AONBs in the
UK and patched them up (see
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/395232 ).  It then
occurred to me that there may be similar issues with other
less-often-visualised areas like traditional and ceremonial counties, so
I used the same method as in that diary entry to check those.  The same
ceremonial counties are found both via Overpass and as polygons in a
rendering database, so there are no problems there.  Traditional
counties were a different issue though - I had to patch up a couple of
minor problems, but the following issues remain:

Brecknock
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8743576
A never-completed "boundary=traditional"

Denbighshire
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8748215
Another never-completed "boundary=traditional".  However, there also is:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/363513
"boundary=historic_county"

Flintshire
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8766027
Another never-completed "boundary=traditional".  However, there also is:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/363512
"boundary=historic_county"

Monmouthshire
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8510619
Another never-completed "boundary=traditional".  However, there also is:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/358021
which is the modern admin_level=6 area with that name - I've no idea
whether it matches the old traditional area.

Montgomeryshire
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8748104
Another never-completed "boundary=traditional".
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/327867517
is a boundary way, which is a member of:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2699713
(ceremonial Powys)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/134324
(admin Powys)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/298880
("VC47 Montgomeryshire")

Radnorshire
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8743599
Another never-completed "boundary=traditional".  However, there also is:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/359950
is "VC43 Radnorshire" - but I've no idea whether it matches the old
traditional area.

Also missing are the rest of the Welsh ones, any Scottish or Irish ones,
and the Ridings of Yorkshire, though the Parts of Lincolnshire have been
mapped: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/128s .

As for Vice Counties (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice-county for
what they actually are - I'd never heard of them pre-OSM), apart from a
minor patch to Pembrokeshire, the UK ones that were present were mostly
OK (many are missing).  The exception is "vice county 67 South
Northumberland":

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2391798
It appears to be oddly named and, like the Welsh trad counties present;
incomplete.

Best Regards,

Andy



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Traditional Counties and Vice Counties

Mark Goodge


On 07/01/2021 23:14, Andy Townsend wrote:

> I'm just writing this just as a "for info" in case anyone is interested,
> not as a "someone must fix this now!" kind of thing.
>
> I recently noticed a few problems with National Parks and AONBs in the
> UK and patched them up (see
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/395232 ).  It then
> occurred to me that there may be similar issues with other
> less-often-visualised areas like traditional and ceremonial counties, so
> I used the same method as in that diary entry to check those.  The same
> ceremonial counties are found both via Overpass and as polygons in a
> rendering database, so there are no problems there.  Traditional
> counties were a different issue though - I had to patch up a couple of
> minor problems, but the following issues remain:
To be honest, I don't think that the traditional counties belong in OSM
anyway, for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, they break the principle that we map what is, not what was.
Traditional county boundaries have no functional administrative value
now, and are irrelevant to anyone who isn't engaged in any kind of
historical research. If people want to use OSM for displaying
traditional counties then a better way is to use OSM as a base map and
then overlay it with a KML layer or GeoJSON layer showing the
traditional boundaries. Or even, as the Association of British Counties
has done, create their own tiles with the traditional boundaries
superimposed. But not put the data into OSM itself.

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.

(For avoidance of doubt, I agree that the Ceremonial Counties - which
are closely based on the Traditional counties - do belong in OSM, as
they have a current function. But for those, we can use the official
boundary data, along with all other current administrative areas).

Mark

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Traditional Counties and Vice Counties

Andy Townsend
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Traditional Counties and Vice Counties

Chris Hodges
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
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Traditional Counties and Vice Counties

Mark Goodge
In reply to this post by Andy Townsend


On 08/01/2021 10:34, Andy Townsend wrote:

> 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.

Actually, the Historic Counties Trust considers them to be those
existing in 1843, before the passing of the Counties (Detached Parts)
Act 1843, and thus before the start of what is generally considered the
concept of modern local government (which was a Victorian invention).

http://www.county-borders.co.uk/Historic_Counties_Standard.pdf

Mark

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Traditional Counties and Vice Counties

Great Britain mailing list
In reply to this post by Chris Hodges
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 <[hidden email]> 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
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Traditional Counties and Vice Counties

Chris Hodges
The fire services are another example, of another set of counties (not
counties but similar)! South Wales is one fire service but several local
authorities and several birding counties (Glamorgan alone is split into
2 for the latter).

I'm not confident that the fire boundaries line up with modern county
boundaries.  In theory the data is available at
https://data.gov.uk/dataset/f6e7b8fa-3a9c-4974-8043-011806ed7d6a/english-and-welsh-fire-and-rescue-authority-boundaries 
but the preview only shows London; downloading the shapefile and
importing into QGIS (2.18) is no better.



On 08/01/2021 11:29, Ian Caldwell wrote:

> 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 <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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
>     > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Talk-GB mailing list
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Traditional Counties and Vice Counties

sk53.osm
In reply to this post by Chris Hodges
For some reason the main ornithology & birder organisations used the post-1974 admin boundaries quite rapidly. I have no idea why as it makes historical comparisons quite difficult. For instance I own a Bird Atlas of Berkshire which covers the post-1974.

In contrast nearly every other group of wildlife is recorded within the boundaries of vice counties which are, in principle, constant, thus allowing excellent historical comparisons, sometimes over centuries. Because they are widely used there are a lot of people familiar with the precise boundaries. The VCs are generally based on county boundaries around 1890 or earlier (as no London), with larger counties split in 2 or more. Rutland is merged with Leicestershire. Welsh VCs are pretty much identical to historical/trad counties, as are Irelands with the main exception of the right bank of the Foyle being included in one of the Donegal VCs rather than Londonderry.. Scotland is a bit different mainly because of the Hebridean islands, so there are several VCs with Ebudes in the name.

Jerry

On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 at 11:02, Chris Hodges <[hidden email]> 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
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Traditional Counties and Vice Counties

Sarah Hoffmann
In reply to this post by Andy Townsend
Hi,

I've stumbled upon these different boundary types while researching
how to improve geocoding in the UK. I was wondering if, even if they
are not in active use, some are a useful frame of reference for
geocoding. Often there are equivalent administrative boundaries
but there are enough cases where the traditional counties have
vanished completely.

Note that I am not referring to official addresses here. It's more
a question is somebody would type e.g. 'Mold, Flintshire' to distinguish
their village/area. Administrative areas in the UK are only of limited
use as your government seems to re(de)organise the country every
decade or so. I could imagine that the traditional counties are something
that corresponds better to local views on geography.

Sarah


On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 11:14:56PM +0000, Andy Townsend wrote:

> I'm just writing this just as a "for info" in case anyone is interested, not
> as a "someone must fix this now!" kind of thing.
>
> I recently noticed a few problems with National Parks and AONBs in the UK
> and patched them up (see
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/395232 ).  It then
> occurred to me that there may be similar issues with other
> less-often-visualised areas like traditional and ceremonial counties, so I
> used the same method as in that diary entry to check those.  The same
> ceremonial counties are found both via Overpass and as polygons in a
> rendering database, so there are no problems there.  Traditional counties
> were a different issue though - I had to patch up a couple of minor
> problems, but the following issues remain:
>
> Brecknock
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8743576
> A never-completed "boundary=traditional"
>
> Denbighshire
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8748215
> Another never-completed "boundary=traditional".  However, there also is:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/363513
> "boundary=historic_county"
>
> Flintshire
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8766027
> Another never-completed "boundary=traditional".  However, there also is:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/363512
> "boundary=historic_county"
>
> Monmouthshire
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8510619
> Another never-completed "boundary=traditional".  However, there also is:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/358021
> which is the modern admin_level=6 area with that name - I've no idea whether
> it matches the old traditional area.
>
> Montgomeryshire
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8748104
> Another never-completed "boundary=traditional".
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/327867517
> is a boundary way, which is a member of:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2699713
> (ceremonial Powys)
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/134324
> (admin Powys)
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/298880
> ("VC47 Montgomeryshire")
>
> Radnorshire
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8743599
> Another never-completed "boundary=traditional".  However, there also is:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/359950
> is "VC43 Radnorshire" - but I've no idea whether it matches the old
> traditional area.
>
> Also missing are the rest of the Welsh ones, any Scottish or Irish ones, and
> the Ridings of Yorkshire, though the Parts of Lincolnshire have been mapped:
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/128s .
>
> As for Vice Counties (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice-county for what
> they actually are - I'd never heard of them pre-OSM), apart from a minor
> patch to Pembrokeshire, the UK ones that were present were mostly OK (many
> are missing).  The exception is "vice county 67 South Northumberland":
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2391798
> It appears to be oddly named and, like the Welsh trad counties present;
> incomplete.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Traditional Counties and Vice Counties

sk53.osm
Hi Sarah,

I would hope people look for Yr Wyddgrug! Or at least that's what my cousins who grew up in the area would do.

I think for people of my age, whose formative exposure to British geography, in and out of school, was prior to the 1974 reorganisation will relate more to the traditional counties, whereas for younger people the situation maybe different, unless they follow cricket. The more-or-less complete disconnect between postal addresses and both traditional counties & current local authorities really doesn't help matters. On top of that administrative boundaries often do not encompass logical urban areas (Nottingham is particularly egregious in this respect, with potentially 5 additional LAs covering the contiguous urban fabric), but Leicester has Oadby & Wigston, and parts of Charnwood & Blaby. There are plenty of places like Barnoldswick, which was in Yorkshire for hundreds of years and is now in the administrative county of Lancashire (which, of course, does not cover the major cities and towns of Lancashire).

Traditional county names are still very useful for disambiguating places with identical names, even though, unlike Switzerland, there is no formal mechanism to do so: for instance, Hayes, Middlesex & Hayes, Kent are both in Greater London.

The modern introduction of city regions makes things even worse: Liverpool City Region is not coincident with the former metropolitan county of Merseyside (Halton aka Runcorn & Widnes was not in the latter). For some  Liverpudlian's many of the inhabitants of this new area are 'woolies' not scousers. Historically, towns like Birkenhead & Wallasey had their own distinctive identities and valued independence. Somehow I doubt that the inhabitants of Hoylake like being described as living in Birkenhead (as Google Maps suggests).

Ultimately, this all ends up being "Am I in Dalston now?". The continually shifting boundaries, creation of new administrative entities & the suppression of many places in postal addresses just mean that identification with places can be highly individual (e.g., youth gangs often use postcode areas), which really doesn't help your task. In Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the island, traditional counties are very much alive & well for many purposes.

Jerry

-- born in Lancashire to parents who lived in Yorkshire (West Riding), paid water rates to Derbyshire & some other bill to Cheshire. Needless to say this house is now in Greater Manchester.

On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 at 16:18, Sarah Hoffmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

I've stumbled upon these different boundary types while researching
how to improve geocoding in the UK. I was wondering if, even if they
are not in active use, some are a useful frame of reference for
geocoding. Often there are equivalent administrative boundaries
but there are enough cases where the traditional counties have
vanished completely.

Note that I am not referring to official addresses here. It's more
a question is somebody would type e.g. 'Mold, Flintshire' to distinguish
their village/area. Administrative areas in the UK are only of limited
use as your government seems to re(de)organise the country every
decade or so. I could imagine that the traditional counties are something
that corresponds better to local views on geography.

Sarah


On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 11:14:56PM +0000, Andy Townsend wrote:
> I'm just writing this just as a "for info" in case anyone is interested, not
> as a "someone must fix this now!" kind of thing.
>
> I recently noticed a few problems with National Parks and AONBs in the UK
> and patched them up (see
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/395232 ).  It then
> occurred to me that there may be similar issues with other
> less-often-visualised areas like traditional and ceremonial counties, so I
> used the same method as in that diary entry to check those.  The same
> ceremonial counties are found both via Overpass and as polygons in a
> rendering database, so there are no problems there.  Traditional counties
> were a different issue though - I had to patch up a couple of minor
> problems, but the following issues remain:
>
> Brecknock
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8743576
> A never-completed "boundary=traditional"
>
> Denbighshire
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8748215
> Another never-completed "boundary=traditional".  However, there also is:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/363513
> "boundary=historic_county"
>
> Flintshire
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8766027
> Another never-completed "boundary=traditional".  However, there also is:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/363512
> "boundary=historic_county"
>
> Monmouthshire
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8510619
> Another never-completed "boundary=traditional".  However, there also is:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/358021
> which is the modern admin_level=6 area with that name - I've no idea whether
> it matches the old traditional area.
>
> Montgomeryshire
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8748104
> Another never-completed "boundary=traditional".
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/327867517
> is a boundary way, which is a member of:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2699713
> (ceremonial Powys)
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/134324
> (admin Powys)
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/298880
> ("VC47 Montgomeryshire")
>
> Radnorshire
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8743599
> Another never-completed "boundary=traditional".  However, there also is:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/359950
> is "VC43 Radnorshire" - but I've no idea whether it matches the old
> traditional area.
>
> Also missing are the rest of the Welsh ones, any Scottish or Irish ones, and
> the Ridings of Yorkshire, though the Parts of Lincolnshire have been mapped:
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/128s .
>
> As for Vice Counties (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice-county for what
> they actually are - I'd never heard of them pre-OSM), apart from a minor
> patch to Pembrokeshire, the UK ones that were present were mostly OK (many
> are missing).  The exception is "vice county 67 South Northumberland":
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2391798
> It appears to be oddly named and, like the Welsh trad counties present;
> incomplete.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Traditional Counties and Vice Counties

Great Britain mailing list

I would agree that generation plays a part.

My formative years were in the 'modern but not current' era, if you see what I mean (1974-200x), so I have always thought of Southampton as in Hampshire (rather than a unitary authority,, as it is now) BUT Bournemouth as in Dorset (even though apparently before 1974 it was in Hampshire. Culturally one could argue Bournemouth as a seaside resort perhaps has more in common with Dorset than Hampshire, but don't want to get into a flame war over this 😉 )

It's not just generation though.. I think if you were brought up in a given area, you relate to the pre-74 counties however old you are. To take an example - the use of 'Avon' to describe the Bristol and Bath area has always seemed natural to me , but someone of my age who studied on my masters' course and was brought up in the Bath area hates it!

Nick


From: SK53 <[hidden email]>
Sent: 08 January 2021 17:06
To: Sarah Hoffmann <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Traditional Counties and Vice Counties
 
Hi Sarah,

I would hope people look for Yr Wyddgrug! Or at least that's what my cousins who grew up in the area would do.

I think for people of my age, whose formative exposure to British geography, in and out of school, was prior to the 1974 reorganisation will relate more to the traditional counties, whereas for younger people the situation maybe different, unless they follow cricket. The more-or-less complete disconnect between postal addresses and both traditional counties & current local authorities really doesn't help matters. On top of that administrative boundaries often do not encompass logical urban areas (Nottingham is particularly egregious in this respect, with potentially 5 additional LAs covering the contiguous urban fabric), but Leicester has Oadby & Wigston, and parts of Charnwood & Blaby. There are plenty of places like Barnoldswick, which was in Yorkshire for hundreds of years and is now in the administrative county of Lancashire (which, of course, does not cover the major cities and towns of Lancashire).

Traditional county names are still very useful for disambiguating places with identical names, even though, unlike Switzerland, there is no formal mechanism to do so: for instance, Hayes, Middlesex & Hayes, Kent are both in Greater London.

The modern introduction of city regions makes things even worse: Liverpool City Region is not coincident with the former metropolitan county of Merseyside (Halton aka Runcorn & Widnes was not in the latter). For some  Liverpudlian's many of the inhabitants of this new area are 'woolies' not scousers. Historically, towns like Birkenhead & Wallasey had their own distinctive identities and valued independence. Somehow I doubt that the inhabitants of Hoylake like being described as living in Birkenhead (as Google Maps suggests).

Ultimately, this all ends up being "Am I in Dalston now?". The continually shifting boundaries, creation of new administrative entities & the suppression of many places in postal addresses just mean that identification with places can be highly individual (e.g., youth gangs often use postcode areas), which really doesn't help your task. In Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the island, traditional counties are very much alive & well for many purposes.

Jerry

-- born in Lancashire to parents who lived in Yorkshire (West Riding), paid water rates to Derbyshire & some other bill to Cheshire. Needless to say this house is now in Greater Manchester.

On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 at 16:18, Sarah Hoffmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

I've stumbled upon these different boundary types while researching
how to improve geocoding in the UK. I was wondering if, even if they
are not in active use, some are a useful frame of reference for
geocoding. Often there are equivalent administrative boundaries
but there are enough cases where the traditional counties have
vanished completely.

Note that I am not referring to official addresses here. It's more
a question is somebody would type e.g. 'Mold, Flintshire' to distinguish
their village/area. Administrative areas in the UK are only of limited
use as your government seems to re(de)organise the country every
decade or so. I could imagine that the traditional counties are something
that corresponds better to local views on geography.

Sarah


On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 11:14:56PM +0000, Andy Townsend wrote:
> I'm just writing this just as a "for info" in case anyone is interested, not
> as a "someone must fix this now!" kind of thing.
>
> I recently noticed a few problems with National Parks and AONBs in the UK
> and patched them up (see
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/395232 ).  It then
> occurred to me that there may be similar issues with other
> less-often-visualised areas like traditional and ceremonial counties, so I
> used the same method as in that diary entry to check those.  The same
> ceremonial counties are found both via Overpass and as polygons in a
> rendering database, so there are no problems there.  Traditional counties
> were a different issue though - I had to patch up a couple of minor
> problems, but the following issues remain:
>
> Brecknock
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8743576
> A never-completed "boundary=traditional"
>
> Denbighshire
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8748215
> Another never-completed "boundary=traditional".  However, there also is:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/363513
> "boundary=historic_county"
>
> Flintshire
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8766027
> Another never-completed "boundary=traditional".  However, there also is:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/363512
> "boundary=historic_county"
>
> Monmouthshire
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8510619
> Another never-completed "boundary=traditional".  However, there also is:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/358021
> which is the modern admin_level=6 area with that name - I've no idea whether
> it matches the old traditional area.
>
> Montgomeryshire
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8748104
> Another never-completed "boundary=traditional".
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/327867517
> is a boundary way, which is a member of:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2699713
> (ceremonial Powys)
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/134324
> (admin Powys)
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/298880
> ("VC47 Montgomeryshire")
>
> Radnorshire
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8743599
> Another never-completed "boundary=traditional".  However, there also is:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/359950
> is "VC43 Radnorshire" - but I've no idea whether it matches the old
> traditional area.
>
> Also missing are the rest of the Welsh ones, any Scottish or Irish ones, and
> the Ridings of Yorkshire, though the Parts of Lincolnshire have been mapped:
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/128s .
>
> As for Vice Counties (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice-county for what
> they actually are - I'd never heard of them pre-OSM), apart from a minor
> patch to Pembrokeshire, the UK ones that were present were mostly OK (many
> are missing).  The exception is "vice county 67 South Northumberland":
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2391798
> It appears to be oddly named and, like the Welsh trad counties present;
> incomplete.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Traditional Counties and Vice Counties

Great Britain mailing list
In reply to this post by Chris Hodges
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.

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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Traditional Counties and Vice Counties

andrew-2

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
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Traditional Counties and Vice Counties

Chris Hodges
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.



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
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Traditional Counties and Vice Counties

andrew-2

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
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Traditional Counties and Vice Counties

Great Britain mailing list
In reply to this post by Chris Hodges
I thought Bristol was in the "City and County of Bristol" before Avon existed? Not saying I'm right, I just thought this was the case.

Nick



From: Chris Hodges <[hidden email]>
Sent: 11 January 2021 12:09
To: [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Traditional Counties and Vice Counties
 
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.



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
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Traditional Counties and Vice Counties

Chris Hodges

I think so too, and it is now, but during the Avon years I'm not sure what the situation was



On 12/01/2021 10:03, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
I thought Bristol was in the "City and County of Bristol" before Avon existed? Not saying I'm right, I just thought this was the case.

Nick



From: Chris Hodges [hidden email]
Sent: 11 January 2021 12:09
To: [hidden email] [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Traditional Counties and Vice Counties
 
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.



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
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Traditional Counties and Vice Counties

Great Britain mailing list
I lived in Avon during a short period when it was still known as Avon (late 1993 to 1995) and Bristol city was one of a number of boroughs within the county, from memory, the others were Bath (Bath city only); Wansdyke (Keynsham, Radstock etc), Woodspring (the south-west, towards Weston Super-Mare) and Northavon (the north bit, which is now called South Gloucestershire I think)

Nick



From: Chris Hodges <[hidden email]>
Sent: 12 January 2021 10:09
To: Nick Whitelegg <[hidden email]>; [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Traditional Counties and Vice Counties
 

I think so too, and it is now, but during the Avon years I'm not sure what the situation was



On 12/01/2021 10:03, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
I thought Bristol was in the "City and County of Bristol" before Avon existed? Not saying I'm right, I just thought this was the case.

Nick



From: Chris Hodges [hidden email]
Sent: 11 January 2021 12:09
To: [hidden email] [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Traditional Counties and Vice Counties
 
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.



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
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Traditional Counties and Vice Counties

Chris Hodges
In reply to this post by andrew-2
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
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb