'historic' county boundaries added to the database

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
36 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

'historic' county boundaries added to the database

David Fox
Hi

User smb1001 is currently adding county boundary relations with
boundary=historic through out the UK:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/ASf (May take a while to run)

Changeset discussion:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/61410203

 From the historic wiki page
"historic objects should not be mapped as it is outside of scope of OSM"

Frankly I don't buy his comments. The problem is where to stop? Do we
have ever iteration of every boundary change since time immemorial? Then
what about buildings, roads, or coastline changes etc? The database
would become unmanageable for editors (it already is if zoomed out too
far).

I think these edits should be revoked.

Cheers
DaveF




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

Re: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

lsces
On 07/08/18 20:48, Dave F wrote:

>
> User smb1001 is currently adding county boundary relations with
> boundary=historic through out the UK:
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/ASf (May take a while to run)
>
> Changeset discussion:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/61410203
>
>  From the historic wiki page
> "historic objects should not be mapped as it is outside of scope of OSM"
>
> Frankly I don't buy his comments. The problem is where to stop? Do we
> have ever iteration of every boundary change since time immemorial? Then
> what about buildings, roads, or coastline changes etc? The database
> would become unmanageable for editors (it already is if zoomed out too
> far).
>
> I think these edits should be revoked.

They should be moved to OHM but then ANY information that is superseded
should be automatically archived to SOMETHING since we are now in a
situation where much accurately mapped material is simply dumped when
there is a change to the current situation. The 'delete' process should
be handled in a manor more sensitive to the hard work that has gone before!

I have always disagreed that 'historic changes have no place in the
database', since the vast majority of the material making up the
historic data such as boundaries IS the same as the current 'live' data.
Simply not downloading data that has a prior end date does not make
anything 'unmanageable', in fact it makes life a hell of a lot easier
since one can simply tag a section of the boundary as 'end_date=xxx' and
add a new section with the boundary change as 'start_date=xxx'. The ONLY
question is what happens to the data once it has an end date ... which
may be some time in the future ...

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - https://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - https://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

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

Re: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

David Woolley
On 08/08/18 09:54, Lester Caine wrote:
> They should be moved to OHM but then ANY information that is superseded
> should be automatically archived to SOMETHING since we are now in a
> situation where much accurately mapped material is simply dumped when
> there is a change to the current situation. The 'delete' process should
> be handled in a manor more sensitive to the hard work that has gone before!
>

Although it can be fiddly to access, the data is not lost.  All you need
is the changeset number of the deletion to be able to access the deleted
data and its complete revision history.

A revertion is not a special operation in the database, so would just be
recorded as a changeset deleting the objects reflecting the historic
boundary.

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

Re: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

Mark Goodge
In reply to this post by David Fox


On 07/08/2018 20:48, Dave F wrote:

> Hi
>
> User smb1001 is currently adding county boundary relations with
> boundary=historic through out the UK:
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/ASf (May take a while to run)
>
> Changeset discussion:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/61410203
>
>  From the historic wiki page
> "historic objects should not be mapped as it is outside of scope of OSM"
>
> Frankly I don't buy his comments. The problem is where to stop? Do we
> have ever iteration of every boundary change since time immemorial? Then
> what about buildings, roads, or coastline changes etc? The database
> would become unmanageable for editors (it already is if zoomed out too
> far).

I agree that "historic" boundaries don't belong in OSM. They have value
for historic researchers, but, as you say, that's not what OSM is about.

It's also flat out incorrect to say that historic boundaries are
"immutable". Although it is true that there were massive changes in the
1970s and a lot more since then, the idea that the historic (or
"traditional") counties were stable throughout history is just
myth-making. A lot of what people think of as the historic county
boundaries are, in fact, a Victorian creation. And even they didn't
leave them alone!

I do think, though, that there's a case for including the current
ceremonial and preserved county boundaries. These have a defined and
relevant meaning here and now, even if it's a less common one than
administrative boundaries such as counties, districts and parishes.
Maybe the people adding historic boundaries to OSM could be nudged in
that direction instead.

Mark

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

Re: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

David Fox
In reply to this post by lsces
Hi

On 08/08/2018 09:54, Lester Caine wrote:
> we are now in a situation where much accurately mapped material is
> simply dumped when there is a change to the current situation.
1. it's not dumped, it's still in the database as a historic version.
2. Changes almost always increase the accuracy & detail of the database.

> The 'delete' process should be handled in a manor more sensitive to
> the hard work that has gone before!
>
> the vast majority of the material making up the historic data such as
> boundaries IS the same as the current 'live' data.

I'm unsure that's true, but if it were, why duplicate?

Cheers
DaveF.

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

Re: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

lsces
On 08/08/18 10:56, Dave F wrote:
>
> On 08/08/2018 09:54, Lester Caine wrote:
>> we are now in a situation where much accurately mapped material is
>> simply dumped when there is a change to the current situation.
> 1. it's not dumped, it's still in the database as a historic version.
> 2. Changes almost always increase the accuracy & detail of the database.

Going back through the change logs is not the easiest process? Isolating
deletions that are due to historic changes rather than simple factual
corrections also muddies the water. But making the link to OHM more
organised would allow current valid data to be archived properly?

>> The 'delete' process should be handled in a manor more sensitive to
>> the hard work that has gone before!
>>
>> the vast majority of the material making up the historic data such as
>> boundaries IS the same as the current 'live' data.
>
> I'm unsure that's true, but if it were, why duplicate?

That was always my argument AGAINST OHM ... since much of the data
making up boundaries has not changed, having to duplicate that
information over to OHM, and then decide where material is current or
historic means that IDEALLY OHM is a complete copy of the OSM database,
but with the historic material easier to find than via change sets ...
why not just manage a single database? People who don't want access to
historic material simply ignore data which has 'expired' via end_date.

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - https://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - https://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

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

Re: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

Colin Smale

The OS publish boundaries for historic counties, so one could say these boundaries are the current boundaries for the historic counties. If this (probably completely static) dataset is used as a baseline, at least these relations would have a verifiable source.

https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/help-and-support/products/boundary-line.html#Historicdownload

"The links above represent counties based on historic records and mapping circa 1888 and using the primary sources of the Local Government (England and Wales) Act 1888, the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889 and the Sheriffs Act 1887. "

 


On 2018-08-08 13:05, Lester Caine wrote:

On 08/08/18 10:56, Dave F wrote:

On 08/08/2018 09:54, Lester Caine wrote:
we are now in a situation where much accurately mapped material is simply dumped when there is a change to the current situation.
1. it's not dumped, it's still in the database as a historic version.
2. Changes almost always increase the accuracy & detail of the database.

Going back through the change logs is not the easiest process? Isolating deletions that are due to historic changes rather than simple factual corrections also muddies the water. But making the link to OHM more organised would allow current valid data to be archived properly?

The 'delete' process should be handled in a manor more sensitive to the hard work that has gone before!

the vast majority of the material making up the historic data such as boundaries IS the same as the current 'live' data.

I'm unsure that's true, but if it were, why duplicate?

That was always my argument AGAINST OHM ... since much of the data making up boundaries has not changed, having to duplicate that information over to OHM, and then decide where material is current or historic means that IDEALLY OHM is a complete copy of the OSM database, but with the historic material easier to find than via change sets ... why not just manage a single database? People who don't want access to historic material simply ignore data which has 'expired' via end_date.

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

Re: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

David Fox
In reply to this post by lsces


On 08/08/2018 12:05, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 08/08/18 10:56, Dave F wrote:
>>
>> On 08/08/2018 09:54, Lester Caine wrote:
>>> we are now in a situation where much accurately mapped material is
>>> simply dumped when there is a change to the current situation.
>> 1. it's not dumped, it's still in the database as a historic version.
>> 2. Changes almost always increase the accuracy & detail of the database.
>
> Going back through the change logs is not the easiest process?

Overpass API QL language offers means to do it using version() & a
couple of other commands

> Isolating deletions that are due to historic changes rather than
> simple factual corrections also muddies the water. But making the link
> to OHM more organised would allow current valid data to be archived
> properly?

It's possible to upload using JOSM, I believe (haven't used it), but I
agree, a more open gateway for transferring would be useful.

>
>>> The 'delete' process should be handled in a manor more sensitive to
>>> the hard work that has gone before!
>>>
>>> the vast majority of the material making up the historic data such
>>> as boundaries IS the same as the current 'live' data.
>>
>> I'm unsure that's true, but if it were, why duplicate?
>
> That was always my argument AGAINST OHM ... since much of the data
> making up boundaries has not changed, having to duplicate that
> information over to OHM, and then decide where material is current or
> historic means that IDEALLY OHM is a complete copy of the OSM
> database, but with the historic material easier to find than via
> change sets ... why not just manage a single database? People who
> don't want access to historic material simply ignore data which has
> 'expired' via end_date.

How often do you believe people will actually want historic data?
Organizations archive for a reason. Consider your house, how things you
don't use will get shoved to the back of the cupboard/shed.
I live in a Roman city, the editors struggle to display current data.
Imagine what it would be like if *everything* was shown back to the days
of Emperor Nero.

Cheers
DaveF

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

Re: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

David Fox
In reply to this post by Colin Smale
Hi

On 08/08/2018 12:14, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> The OS publish boundaries for historic counties, so one could say
> these boundaries are the current boundaries for the historic counties.
>

To me that's an oxymoron.

> If this (probably completely static) dataset is used as a baseline, at
> least these relations would have a verifiable source.
>
> https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/help-and-support/products/boundary-line.html#Historicdownload
>
> "The links above represent counties based on historic records and
> mapping circa 1888 and using the primary sources of the Local
> Government (England and Wales) Act 1888, the Local Government
> (Scotland) Act 1889 and the Sheriffs Act 1887. "
>

Those are fairly inaccurate snap shots of what thought to be accurate at
that just date. As Mark G pointed out it's a ridiculous notion to
believe those boundaries can be  extrapolated back to "Saxon times".

Cheers
DaveF

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

Re: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

Colin Smale

On 2018-08-08 14:17, Dave F wrote:

Hi

On 08/08/2018 12:14, Colin Smale wrote:
If this (probably completely static) dataset is used as a baseline, at least these relations would have a verifiable source.

https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/help-and-support/products/boundary-line.html#Historicdownload

"The links above represent counties based on historic records and mapping circa 1888 and using the primary sources of the Local Government (England and Wales) Act 1888, the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889 and the Sheriffs Act 1887. "


Those are fairly inaccurate snap shots of what thought to be accurate at that just date. As Mark G pointed out it's a ridiculous notion to believe those boundaries can be  extrapolated back to "Saxon times".

They would be accurate according to the source (viz. OS). 1888 is of course nowhere near "Saxon times". If the OS-provided data were to be used as the source of the "historic county boundaries" would that not be grounds for a possible compromise here?
 
There are plenty of examples of "former" objects in OSM - closed pubs, railway alignments etc. They are only still there because they are perceived to have some kind of relevance in the present day. Can a case be made that these historic counties are still "relevant" today?  I would like to hear smb1001's take on this.
 

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

Re: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

lsces
In reply to this post by David Fox
On 08/08/18 12:59, Dave F wrote:
> How often do you believe people will actually want historic data?
> Organizations archive for a reason. Consider your house, how things you
> don't use will get shoved to the back of the cupboard/shed.
> I live in a Roman city, the editors struggle to display current data.
> Imagine what it would be like if *everything* was shown back to the days
> of Emperor Nero.

We have the same problem all over the place in keeping historic data
accessible. The argument is always 'How many people will use it' or
'Does it matter if we ignore that' :(

Even providing verifiable timestamps for historic events is a gamble
since the timezone database hides verified data prior to 1970 'because
it's outside the remit'! In which case one needs a reliable source for
time offsets even as recently as the 2nd world war because those
provided by TZ are known to be wrong ... but nobody provides it :(

The fact that there was Roman settlement in an area is very useful data
for a planning department to know if a full archaeological report is
needed. My own genealogical research would be helped if CURRENT data had
a start_date and then one could see if a street being referenced
actually existed at the time ... that is one for OSM rather than OHM
except the street may have been 'moved' or renamed, at which time the
historic element may become important. And knowing if the street on the
current map was in a different county is also important data. But where
do you go to find out.

There is no clear distinction as to what is current and what is historic
data. They intertwine and a single documented view of all the data
including that which is becoming history on a daily basis should be the
target, rather than saying 'It's too difficult so lets ignore it'. It's
not difficult for a computer to manage and if people have the desire to
start filling in all the gaps then they should be supported, not told to
go away?

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - https://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - https://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

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

Re: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

David Fox
In reply to this post by Colin Smale


On 08/08/2018 13:54, Colin Smale wrote:

On 2018-08-08 14:17, Dave F wrote:

Hi

On 08/08/2018 12:14, Colin Smale wrote:
If this (probably completely static) dataset is used as a baseline, at least these relations would have a verifiable source.

https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/help-and-support/products/boundary-line.html#Historicdownload

"The links above represent counties based on historic records and mapping circa 1888 and using the primary sources of the Local Government (England and Wales) Act 1888, the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889 and the Sheriffs Act 1887. "


Those are fairly inaccurate snap shots of what thought to be accurate at that just date. As Mark G pointed out it's a ridiculous notion to believe those boundaries can be  extrapolated back to "Saxon times".

They would be accurate according to the source (viz. OS). 1888 is of course nowhere near "Saxon times".

The contributor adding them has added no date & claims they're accurate back to the Saxon invasion. Which is ridiculous. 

If the OS-provided data were to be used as the source of the "historic county boundaries" would that not be grounds for a possible compromise here?

Again, where to stop? No data is destroyed. OHM provides an equivalent database to store old data if needed.

 
There are plenty of examples of "former" objects in OSM - closed pubs, railway alignments etc. They are only still there because they are perceived to have some kind of relevance in the present day. Can a case be made that these historic counties are still "relevant" today?  I would like to hear smb1001's take on this.

Pubs often reopen.
Disused/razed/abandoned railways should be removed from the OSM database *but* only if they're not tagged along with current features (cycleway, embankments, bridges etc)

smb1001 is aware of this discussion. His views are in the changeset comments.

Cheers
DaveF



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

Re: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

lsces
In reply to this post by Colin Smale
On 08/08/18 13:54, Colin Smale wrote:
> There are plenty of examples of "former" objects in OSM - closed pubs,
> railway alignments etc. They are only still there because they are
> perceived to have some kind of relevance in the present day. Can a case
> be made that these historic counties are still "relevant" today?

I'm listening to the steam trains pulling in and out of Broadway station
at the moment. This was a 'disused' line and there was talk about
removing that sort of data from OSM. The line out of Broadway goes on
north and still has a designated use of 'disused railway'. I don't know
if the line will ever be extended, but in some peoples minds it's on the
cards as it could eventually link to Stratford Upon Avon. That end of
the line has now been built on so a new terminus would have to stop
short, but knowing where the line used to run through that house estate
is interesting to some.

Even a pub has a place in the tracking of genealogical data and if one
has some means of showing a current map with the location of previous
events it's a useful tool. OHM is trying to do that, but since every
change in OSM has to be mirrored to OHM I find this very counter
productive ... YES there is a need for separate layers of data such as
the battles of the second world war, but all should have a single base
in OSM and where key parts of the two combine, the current OSM map
continues to display them. Purely using OSM data to show the development
of a town over time potentially needs very little 'historic' data other
then 'start_date' ...

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - https://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - https://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

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

Re: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

David Fox
In reply to this post by lsces


On 08/08/2018 14:02, Lester Caine wrote:

> On 08/08/18 12:59, Dave F wrote:
>> How often do you believe people will actually want historic data?
>> Organizations archive for a reason. Consider your house, how things
>> you don't use will get shoved to the back of the cupboard/shed.
>> I live in a Roman city, the editors struggle to display current data.
>> Imagine what it would be like if *everything* was shown back to the
>> days of Emperor Nero.
>
> We have the same problem all over the place in keeping historic data
> accessible. The argument is always 'How many people will use it' or
> 'Does it matter if we ignore that' :(
>
> Even providing verifiable timestamps for historic events is a gamble
> since the timezone database hides verified data prior to 1970 'because
> it's outside the remit'! In which case one needs a reliable source for
> time offsets even as recently as the 2nd world war because those
> provided by TZ are known to be wrong ... but nobody provides it :(
>
> The fact that there was Roman settlement in an area is very useful
> data for a planning department to know if a full archaeological report
> is needed.

I agree and point out that that's *exactly* what OHM was set up for.

> My own genealogical research would be helped if CURRENT data had a
> start_date and then one could see if a street being referenced
> actually existed at the time ... that is one for OSM rather than OHM

Date tagging would apply to both OSM & OHM entities.

> except the street may have been 'moved' or renamed, at which time the
> historic element may become important. And knowing if the street on
> the current map was in a different county is also important data. But
> where do you go to find out.

By comparing OSM with OHM.

> There is no clear distinction as to what is current and what is
> historic data.

Sorry but that's wrong. If it's physical object & you can see it, it's
current. If it's a human construct (such as boundaries) and listed as
'current' in the Authorities documents as current, then it's current.

> They intertwine and a single documented view of all the data including
> that which is becoming history on a daily basis should be the target,
> rather than saying 'It's too difficult so lets ignore it'. It's not
> difficult for a computer to manage and if people have the desire to
> start filling in all the gaps then they should be supported, not told
> to go away?

All data is still available no matter where it's stored.

I suspect I'll be repeating myself, so I'm out for now.

Cheers
DaveF


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

Re: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

Mark Goodge
In reply to this post by lsces


On 08/08/2018 14:20, Lester Caine wrote:

> On 08/08/18 13:54, Colin Smale wrote:
>> There are plenty of examples of "former" objects in OSM - closed pubs,
>> railway alignments etc. They are only still there because they are
>> perceived to have some kind of relevance in the present day. Can a
>> case be made that these historic counties are still "relevant" today?
>
> I'm listening to the steam trains pulling in and out of Broadway station
> at the moment. This was a 'disused' line and there was talk about
> removing that sort of data from OSM. The line out of Broadway goes on
> north and still has a designated use of 'disused railway'. I don't know
> if the line will ever be extended, but in some peoples minds it's on the
> cards as it could eventually link to Stratford Upon Avon. That end of
> the line has now been built on so a new terminus would have to stop
> short, but knowing where the line used to run through that house estate
> is interesting to some.

The disused line north of Broadway to Honeybourne is still visible on
the ground, though. So it needs to be mapped. But the former route of
the line through Stratford isn't visible on the ground, so it doesn't
need to be mapped. A building which was once a pub is still worth noting
as a former pub (particularly if it still looks like a pub). But if it's
demolished, leaving no trace, there's no need to retain a marker for
where it was.

In any case, though, mapping administrative boundaries performs a
different function to mapping physical geography (either natural or
man-made). Administrative boundaries (other than where they coincide
with natural features such as a river) are not visible even when fully
active. There may be a sign on the road telling me when I pass from
Worcestershire into Gloucestershire, but there's nothing on the ground
which indicates any difference. However, administrative boundaries
matter, because they affect everyday life in many different ways. So
mapping them makes sense, even though they can't be seen. You can't make
the same argument for a former railway route that has been completely
obliterated by a housing development.

As I understand it (and those with a much longer association with OSM
can, no doubt, correct me if I'm wrong), the point of OSM is to be a
useful map for everyday purposes by ordinary people (ie, not cartography
specialists or other academic purposes). So, we map things that can be
seen, such as rivers, roads, woodland, buildings, etc - the physical
environment - and we map things that are unseen, but directly affect our
use of the physical environment, such as road classifications and
administrative boundaries. But we don't map things that are unseen and
do not affect everyday interactions with the physical environment.

Now-obliterated former rail (and road) routes fall into the latter
category, and so do non-current administrative boundaries. That doesn't
mean they're of no interest at all. But they are only of interest to a
relatively small subset of potential users of the map, and as such are
better catered for by specialist variants of the map (such as OHM, or
OpenRailwayMap).

Putting everything in OSM merely adds unnecessary complexity, and
creates more problems down the line with maintenance when those who
originally added the data lose interest. It also risks putting off
newcomers to OSM editing, who may find the learning curve created by
loads of seemingly extraneous data to be too challenging.

There has to be a limit somewhere, and, as far as non-visible data is
concerned, being relevant to everyday, *non-specialist* life is the best
place to put it.

Mark

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

Re: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

Sean Blanchflower
In reply to this post by David Fox
Hi all,
I'm smb1001 and have been adding the traditional county boundaries recently. DaveF kindly let me know of the discussion thread here so I've joined Talk-GB to add my side of things.

I'm not alone in thinking the traditional county boundaries have a place on current maps. It's unfortunate here that these counties are known as 'historic counties' as this implies that they are no longer extant. The debate as to their current utility or their immutability is not one I feel is relevant here as there are arguments on both sides, but the Association of British Counties summarises it more succinctly than I could in any case (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_British_Counties and the many links therein).

I have no intention of adding any "historic" boundaries beyond the counties. I settled on the (static) definition of "historic counties" used by the Ordnance Survey and UK government and was going to stop there. 

I would also have never started my efforts if the results would have littered invisible lines all over the map. Similarly, if there were an authoritative trace that could be imported then I'd agree that that also should be blocked. The reason I've been doing it is that 99% of the ways required to create the counties are already in OSM. Pretty much all I've been doing is adding existing (administrative) boundary ways to these new 'historic' relations alongside the 'ceremonial' and myriad 'administrative'.

(As an aside, I would also have never started my efforts if I hadn't been inspired by finding that the same had been done for other countries.)

I fully agree with Lester's comments on OHM in all this. Without the presence of the 'current' OSM database in OHM, it's impossible to get any traction there. For example I can't actually add the traditional counties to OHM without the current OSM administrative boundaries (county and parish). Then again, as he said, if the current OSM set were put there to do so, it ends up duplicating the site.

I also agree with DaveF that to add every iteration of former boundaries is not for OSM, but I would argue that the addition of the traditional counties as defined by this current definition does not fall into that. After all, certain councils have already been erecting road signs indicating the presence of these county boundaries so why would we not reflect that.

I begin to fear I've caused offence in my recent editing, so apologies if so. I'm just a keen OSM editor trying to add what I see as a valuable omission in its database.

smb1001





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

Re: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

Colin Spiller
In reply to this post by Mark Goodge
Here in Yorkshire, people are very possessive (if that's the right
word!) about the old county boundary (i.e. pre 1974). Many people are
very aware of the problem (as they see it) that certain parts of
Yorkshire have been transferred to (or 'stolen by') Lancashire, or other
counties. They still think of the 3 Ridings as current in some cases.

And Liverpool and Manchester are still parts of Lancashire according to
some!

Colin


On 08/08/18 10:55, Mark Goodge wrote:

>
>
> On 07/08/2018 20:48, Dave F wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> User smb1001 is currently adding county boundary relations with
>> boundary=historic through out the UK:
>> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/ASf (May take a while to run)
>>
>> Changeset discussion:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/61410203
>>
>>  From the historic wiki page
>> "historic objects should not be mapped as it is outside of scope of OSM"
>>
>> Frankly I don't buy his comments. The problem is where to stop? Do we
>> have ever iteration of every boundary change since time immemorial?
>> Then what about buildings, roads, or coastline changes etc? The
>> database would become unmanageable for editors (it already is if
>> zoomed out too far).
>
> I agree that "historic" boundaries don't belong in OSM. They have
> value for historic researchers, but, as you say, that's not what OSM
> is about.
>
> It's also flat out incorrect to say that historic boundaries are
> "immutable". Although it is true that there were massive changes in
> the 1970s and a lot more since then, the idea that the historic (or
> "traditional") counties were stable throughout history is just
> myth-making. A lot of what people think of as the historic county
> boundaries are, in fact, a Victorian creation. And even they didn't
> leave them alone!
>
> I do think, though, that there's a case for including the current
> ceremonial and preserved county boundaries. These have a defined and
> relevant meaning here and now, even if it's a less common one than
> administrative boundaries such as counties, districts and parishes.
> Maybe the people adding historic boundaries to OSM could be nudged in
> that direction instead.
>
> Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

--
Colin Spiller
[hidden email]


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

Re: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

Nick Whitelegg-2

I think these things are at least partly a product of what generation you belong to.

I'm of the generation that was too young to remember pre-1974 but was well into my twenties by the next reorganisation. Consequently I think of Manchester as being in Greater Manchester (and that I was both born in and lived the first 5 years or so of my life in Greater Manchester) and Bournemouth as being in Dorset, and not Hampshire.

But, on the other hand, I think of Southampton, where I live now, as firmly in Hampshire even though technically it's not part of HCC. 

The only exceptions are that I think of Rutland as Rutland and Herefordshire and Worcestershire as their own counties - and not combined.

Basically, the current "ceremonial counties" correspond very closely to what county I think of something as being in!

Nick




From: Colin Spiller <[hidden email]>
Sent: 08 August 2018 16:29:15
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database
 
Here in Yorkshire, people are very possessive (if that's the right
word!) about the old county boundary (i.e. pre 1974). Many people are
very aware of the problem (as they see it) that certain parts of
Yorkshire have been transferred to (or 'stolen by') Lancashire, or other
counties. They still think of the 3 Ridings as current in some cases.

And Liverpool and Manchester are still parts of Lancashire according to
some!

Colin


On 08/08/18 10:55, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>
> On 07/08/2018 20:48, Dave F wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> User smb1001 is currently adding county boundary relations with
>> boundary=historic through out the UK:
>> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/ASf (May take a while to run)
>>
>> Changeset discussion:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/61410203
>>
>>  From the historic wiki page
>> "historic objects should not be mapped as it is outside of scope of OSM"
>>
>> Frankly I don't buy his comments. The problem is where to stop? Do we
>> have ever iteration of every boundary change since time immemorial?
>> Then what about buildings, roads, or coastline changes etc? The
>> database would become unmanageable for editors (it already is if
>> zoomed out too far).
>
> I agree that "historic" boundaries don't belong in OSM. They have
> value for historic researchers, but, as you say, that's not what OSM
> is about.
>
> It's also flat out incorrect to say that historic boundaries are
> "immutable". Although it is true that there were massive changes in
> the 1970s and a lot more since then, the idea that the historic (or
> "traditional") counties were stable throughout history is just
> myth-making. A lot of what people think of as the historic county
> boundaries are, in fact, a Victorian creation. And even they didn't
> leave them alone!
>
> I do think, though, that there's a case for including the current
> ceremonial and preserved county boundaries. These have a defined and
> relevant meaning here and now, even if it's a less common one than
> administrative boundaries such as counties, districts and parishes.
> Maybe the people adding historic boundaries to OSM could be nudged in
> that direction instead.
>
> Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

--
Colin Spiller
[hidden email]


_______________________________________________
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: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

sdoerr
In reply to this post by David Fox

On 8 August 2018, at 15:50, Sean Blanchflower <[hidden email]> wrote:

>I begin to fear I've caused offence in my recent editing, so apologies if so. I'm just a keen OSM editor trying to add what I see as a valuable omission in its database.

I for one am glad to have the boundaries of the 'real' counties in OSM, so thank you for doing this.

Steve


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

Re: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

Nick Whitelegg-2
In reply to this post by Nick Whitelegg-2


... even though technically, it was not Greater Manchester when I was born, it was in my earliest memories.


Nick




From: Nick Whitelegg <[hidden email]>
Sent: 08 August 2018 17:03
To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database
 

I think these things are at least partly a product of what generation you belong to.

I'm of the generation that was too young to remember pre-1974 but was well into my twenties by the next reorganisation. Consequently I think of Manchester as being in Greater Manchester (and that I was both born in and lived the first 5 years or so of my life in Greater Manchester) and Bournemouth as being in Dorset, and not Hampshire.

But, on the other hand, I think of Southampton, where I live now, as firmly in Hampshire even though technically it's not part of HCC. 

The only exceptions are that I think of Rutland as Rutland and Herefordshire and Worcestershire as their own counties - and not combined.

Basically, the current "ceremonial counties" correspond very closely to what county I think of something as being in!

Nick




From: Colin Spiller <[hidden email]>
Sent: 08 August 2018 16:29:15
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database
 
Here in Yorkshire, people are very possessive (if that's the right
word!) about the old county boundary (i.e. pre 1974). Many people are
very aware of the problem (as they see it) that certain parts of
Yorkshire have been transferred to (or 'stolen by') Lancashire, or other
counties. They still think of the 3 Ridings as current in some cases.

And Liverpool and Manchester are still parts of Lancashire according to
some!

Colin


On 08/08/18 10:55, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>
> On 07/08/2018 20:48, Dave F wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> User smb1001 is currently adding county boundary relations with
>> boundary=historic through out the UK:
>> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/ASf (May take a while to run)
>>
>> Changeset discussion:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/61410203
>>
>>  From the historic wiki page
>> "historic objects should not be mapped as it is outside of scope of OSM"
>>
>> Frankly I don't buy his comments. The problem is where to stop? Do we
>> have ever iteration of every boundary change since time immemorial?
>> Then what about buildings, roads, or coastline changes etc? The
>> database would become unmanageable for editors (it already is if
>> zoomed out too far).
>
> I agree that "historic" boundaries don't belong in OSM. They have
> value for historic researchers, but, as you say, that's not what OSM
> is about.
>
> It's also flat out incorrect to say that historic boundaries are
> "immutable". Although it is true that there were massive changes in
> the 1970s and a lot more since then, the idea that the historic (or
> "traditional") counties were stable throughout history is just
> myth-making. A lot of what people think of as the historic county
> boundaries are, in fact, a Victorian creation. And even they didn't
> leave them alone!
>
> I do think, though, that there's a case for including the current
> ceremonial and preserved county boundaries. These have a defined and
> relevant meaning here and now, even if it's a less common one than
> administrative boundaries such as counties, districts and parishes.
> Maybe the people adding historic boundaries to OSM could be nudged in
> that direction instead.
>
> Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

--
Colin Spiller
[hidden email]


_______________________________________________
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
12