'historic' county boundaries added to the database

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
123 messages Options
1234567
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

Adam Snape
Hi,

Both Colin and Dave have repeated the implication that the traditional counties don't exist. It's very much arguable I guess, certainly successive governments have made clear that they recognised the continued existence of the traditional counties, and that administrative changes neither legally abolished nor altered these counties.

On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 22:01 Colin Smale, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Except that the "ceremonial counties" actually do exist, and serve a function. They are formally called "Lieutenancy Areas" and represent the jurisdiction of the Lord Lieutenant as direct representative of the monarchy. Their boundaries are maintained by a different legal process to the admin areas, and on occasions can diverge for a limited period until they catch up with changes to admin boundaries. And then there is the Stockton-on-Tees anomaly...the borough is divided between the ceremonial counties of Durham and North Yorkshire.

Thanks Colin,

Yes, I was aware of how the ceremonial counties are defined. I think if we're truly honest with ourselves we don't really map them because lord lieutenancies (as wonderfully arcane and obscure as they are) are of any real importance, but because they provide a vaguely sensible and recognisable set of geographic areas that we can call counties. Certainly if administrative importance were genuinely to be our criteria for mapping we would be mapping all kinds of things prior to lord lieutenancies.

In practical terms lords lieutenant are historic, honorary crown appointments and little more. If we actually believed this was justification for mapping we could use the same arguments for mapping the areas over which the royal duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall perform various honorary and historic functions (such as appointing the ever-so-important-in-the-present-day lords lieutenant) and exercise special rights. Incidentally their legally-defined and extant boundaries are the historic/traditional boundaries of the counties of Lancashire and Cornwall :)

Kind regards,

Adam

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

Re: boundary mania

Mark Goodge
In reply to this post by Colin Smale


On 26/08/2018 21:36, Colin Smale wrote:

> On 2018-08-26 21:17, David Woolley wrote:
>
>> It looks to me as though boundaries can be defined recursively, so
>> Hampshire, rather than its bounding ways, ought to to be the object
>> referenced in the bigger entities.
> This wouldn't work in the case of civil parishes as components of
> districts and UA's though. You cannot define a district as the union of
> the parishes. There are unparished areas, detached parts and "lands
> common" which complicate the model. However I believe every point in the
> UK is within some district/UA, and every district is within a county,
> giving 100% coverage at that level.


Every point is within a district, but not every district is within a
county - unless, that is, you consider a unitary authority to be
effectively two different entities that happen to have identical boundaries.

 From a legal perspective, districts (or boroughs, cities and unitary
authorities) are the fundamental building blocks of British local
government. Parishes or communities, where they exist, are subdivisions
of districts. Counties or metropolitan authorities, where they exist,
are unions of districts. The district is the "principal authority"
defined in legislation, everything else is relative to it.

(As an aside, this is also one of the big drivers of nostalgia for the
pre-1974 "historic" counties. The Victorian system had the county as the
fundamental unit. So even where we still have counties, they are not the
same as they used to be).

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

Dave F
In reply to this post by Adam Snape
Hi

To repeat, They do exist, but only as a record of old data, not current. just as there's a record of Humberside & Avon. That they don't get altered is irrelevant.

I disagree about their legality.

DaveF
 
On 26/08/2018 23:01, Adam Snape wrote:
Hi,

Both Colin and Dave have repeated the implication that the traditional counties don't exist. It's very much arguable I guess, certainly successive governments have made clear that they recognised the continued existence of the traditional counties, and that administrative changes neither legally abolished nor altered these counties.

On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 22:01 Colin Smale, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Except that the "ceremonial counties" actually do exist, and serve a function. They are formally called "Lieutenancy Areas" and represent the jurisdiction of the Lord Lieutenant as direct representative of the monarchy. Their boundaries are maintained by a different legal process to the admin areas, and on occasions can diverge for a limited period until they catch up with changes to admin boundaries. And then there is the Stockton-on-Tees anomaly...the borough is divided between the ceremonial counties of Durham and North Yorkshire.

Thanks Colin,

Yes, I was aware of how the ceremonial counties are defined. I think if we're truly honest with ourselves we don't really map them because lord lieutenancies (as wonderfully arcane and obscure as they are) are of any real importance, but because they provide a vaguely sensible and recognisable set of geographic areas that we can call counties. Certainly if administrative importance were genuinely to be our criteria for mapping we would be mapping all kinds of things prior to lord lieutenancies.

In practical terms lords lieutenant are historic, honorary crown appointments and little more. If we actually believed this was justification for mapping we could use the same arguments for mapping the areas over which the royal duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall perform various honorary and historic functions (such as appointing the ever-so-important-in-the-present-day lords lieutenant) and exercise special rights. Incidentally their legally-defined and extant boundaries are the historic/traditional boundaries of the counties of Lancashire and Cornwall :)

Kind regards,

Adam


_______________________________________________
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: boundary mania

Colin Smale
In reply to this post by Mark Goodge

On 2018-08-27 00:24, Mark Goodge wrote:


On 26/08/2018 21:36, Colin Smale wrote:
On 2018-08-26 21:17, David Woolley wrote:

It looks to me as though boundaries can be defined recursively, so Hampshire, rather than its bounding ways, ought to to be the object referenced in the bigger entities.
This wouldn't work in the case of civil parishes as components of districts and UA's though. You cannot define a district as the union of the parishes. There are unparished areas, detached parts and "lands common" which complicate the model. However I believe every point in the UK is within some district/UA, and every district is within a county, giving 100% coverage at that level.

Every point is within a district, but not every district is within a county - unless, that is, you consider a unitary authority to be effectively two different entities that happen to have identical boundaries.
 
I think you understood what I meant. AIUI a UA is normally technically a district. A city is an orthogonal concept- a "city council" can be a UA (eg Nottingham), a District (eg Canterbury) or a Civil Parish (eg Salisbury) that has been awarded that status. And not every city has its own council of any type (eg Bath).
 
And of course a council is not an area, it is an administrative body. There are admin areas defined in law that do not have a corresponding council, eg the county of Berkshire and many Civil Parishes. Sometimes they play games with the naming: Rutland County Council is not a county council, because there is no extant county of Rutland. It is a non-metropolitan district with unitary status, whose council is formally called Rutland County Council District Council.
 
I stand by my comment that the "sum of parts" system could work down to the district/UA level, and not down to the civil parish level.


_______________________________________________
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

Neil Matthews
In reply to this post by Dave F

*If* there are used for looking up addresses, then there is some very slight advantage to having them -- I still occasionally see websites/people referring to Avon :-)

Neil

On 26/08/2018 23:49, Dave F wrote:

Hi

To repeat, They do exist, but only as a record of old data, not current. just as there's a record of Humberside & Avon. That they don't get altered is irrelevant.

I disagree about their legality.

DaveF
 
On 26/08/2018 23:01, Adam Snape wrote:
Hi,

Both Colin and Dave have repeated the implication that the traditional counties don't exist. It's very much arguable I guess, certainly successive governments have made clear that they recognised the continued existence of the traditional counties, and that administrative changes neither legally abolished nor altered these counties.

On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 22:01 Colin Smale, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Except that the "ceremonial counties" actually do exist, and serve a function. They are formally called "Lieutenancy Areas" and represent the jurisdiction of the Lord Lieutenant as direct representative of the monarchy. Their boundaries are maintained by a different legal process to the admin areas, and on occasions can diverge for a limited period until they catch up with changes to admin boundaries. And then there is the Stockton-on-Tees anomaly...the borough is divided between the ceremonial counties of Durham and North Yorkshire.

Thanks Colin,

Yes, I was aware of how the ceremonial counties are defined. I think if we're truly honest with ourselves we don't really map them because lord lieutenancies (as wonderfully arcane and obscure as they are) are of any real importance, but because they provide a vaguely sensible and recognisable set of geographic areas that we can call counties. Certainly if administrative importance were genuinely to be our criteria for mapping we would be mapping all kinds of things prior to lord lieutenancies.

In practical terms lords lieutenant are historic, honorary crown appointments and little more. If we actually believed this was justification for mapping we could use the same arguments for mapping the areas over which the royal duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall perform various honorary and historic functions (such as appointing the ever-so-important-in-the-present-day lords lieutenant) and exercise special rights. Incidentally their legally-defined and extant boundaries are the historic/traditional boundaries of the counties of Lancashire and Cornwall :)

Kind regards,

Adam


_______________________________________________
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: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

Colin Smale

On 2018-08-27 01:27, Neil Matthews wrote:

*If* there are used for looking up addresses, then there is some very slight advantage to having them -- I still occasionally see websites/people referring to Avon :-)

Postal counties are a whole new family-sized can of worms.... Everybody knows Uxbridge is in Middlesex, and Bromley is in Kent, right?



_______________________________________________
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

Dan S
Though I've no particular expertise to add, this thread has tipped me
in favour of being happy with these boundaries. Colin very rightly
emphasised process - how do we come to some decision rather than
simply expressing our views and then sitting back waiting for it to
erupt again in 18 months? I'm not a big one for voting eg on tagging
but this seems to be a great case for a Loomio vote or a wiki vote, as
has already been suggested. Can someone perhaps set one up? Maybe a
Loomio vote, and we'd probably want to paste its outcome into the wiki
after to make sure it wasn't lost?

Dan

_______________________________________________
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

Frederik Ramm
Hi,

On 18.09.2018 10:04, Dan S wrote:
> Though I've no particular expertise to add, this thread has tipped me
> in favour of being happy with these boundaries. Colin very rightly
> emphasised process - how do we come to some decision rather than
> simply expressing our views and then sitting back waiting for it to
> erupt again in 18 months?

Also, a decision in favour of keeping historic boundaries should explain
exactly why an exception was made from the general rule in this case, so
that people won't take this as a reason to map historic fiefdoms all
over the planet.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [hidden email]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

_______________________________________________
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

Adam Snape
In reply to this post by Dan S
His,

I think I said earlier in the thread but I've never viewed OSM as a strict majority rule, more a do-ocracy or rule by consensus. Certainly, I think anybody proposing the deletion of others' mapping ought to be sure of clear community consensus, not just a mere majority opinion. Future mappers should not be bound by the views of 7/12 mappers participating in a Loomio vote in 2018.

Kind regards,

Adam


On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, 09:11 Dan S, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Though I've no particular expertise to add, this thread has tipped me
in favour of being happy with these boundaries. Colin very rightly
emphasised process - how do we come to some decision rather than
simply expressing our views and then sitting back waiting for it to
erupt again in 18 months? I'm not a big one for voting eg on tagging
but this seems to be a great case for a Loomio vote or a wiki vote, as
has already been suggested. Can someone perhaps set one up? Maybe a
Loomio vote, and we'd probably want to paste its outcome into the wiki
after to make sure it wasn't lost?

Dan

_______________________________________________
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

Colin Smale

On 2018-09-18 10:53, Adam Snape wrote:

His,
 
I think I said earlier in the thread but I've never viewed OSM as a strict majority rule, more a do-ocracy or rule by consensus. Certainly, I think anybody proposing the deletion of others' mapping ought to be sure of clear community consensus, not just a mere majority opinion. Future mappers should not be bound by the views of 7/12 mappers participating in a Loomio vote in 2018.
 
And I am not sure the mappers (on the input side) are the only ones who count. Shouldn't we make sure the views of other constituencies such as data consumers and software communities be represented somewhere as well? This particular change is only adding new information which will be ignored by uninterested parties, but many other tagging discussions could be considered "breaking changes" which should probably have evidence of broader support before being given any kind of seal of approval.

_______________________________________________
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

Dave F
In reply to this post by Adam Snape
Hi all.

There's appears to be a misguided belief this hasn't been discussed previously. It has, numerous times, and the consensus of those who took part was so clear it's now included in the first page every new users sees.

I feel there is nothing to discuss/vote on as it all been said & done before. Transference to OHM is the only option.

As Frederick & others point out - It will open the floodgates for other irrelevant data to be added.

Cheers
DaveF
 

On 18/09/2018 09:53, Adam Snape wrote:
His,

I think I said earlier in the thread but I've never viewed OSM as a strict majority rule, more a do-ocracy or rule by consensus. Certainly, I think anybody proposing the deletion of others' mapping ought to be sure of clear community consensus, not just a mere majority opinion. Future mappers should not be bound by the views of 7/12 mappers participating in a Loomio vote in 2018.

Kind regards,

Adam


On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, 09:11 Dan S, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Though I've no particular expertise to add, this thread has tipped me
in favour of being happy with these boundaries. Colin very rightly
emphasised process - how do we come to some decision rather than
simply expressing our views and then sitting back waiting for it to
erupt again in 18 months? I'm not a big one for voting eg on tagging
but this seems to be a great case for a Loomio vote or a wiki vote, as
has already been suggested. Can someone perhaps set one up? Maybe a
Loomio vote, and we'd probably want to paste its outcome into the wiki
after to make sure it wasn't lost?

Dan

_______________________________________________
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: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

Colin Smale

On 2018-09-18 15:47, Dave F wrote:

As Frederick & others point out - It will open the floodgates for other irrelevant data to be added.

Relevance is not at issue here - that is far too subjective. The point is that the "OSM Community" is making a decision that this data is not within the intended scope of OSM and is therefore nominated for deletion.

All we need now is a volunteer to:

a) document the determination such that it can be used as jurisprudence in similar cases in the future

b) communicate this to the user in question

c) perform the deletion

As this is purely about data, it should probably be the DWG?



_______________________________________________
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

Adam Snape
Hi,

I think this needs discussing on its own merits, because the argument being made here is different to the usual argument for adding historical features. The OP and others have made clear that the motivation lies not in recording now-disappeared historical features, but in mapping traditional geographic boundaries that retain some cultural (and in some cases such as the Royal Duchies - administrative and ceremonial) importance.

Kind regards,

Adam

_______________________________________________
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

Warin
In reply to this post by Martin Wynne
On 27/08/18 06:05, Martin Wynne wrote:
>> I don't think it's for those who have mapped something in OSM to
>> demonstrate majority support for its retention. I think it is for those
>> seeking to have others' contributions removed to demonstrate a clear
>> consensus in favour of deletion.
>
> Should this consensus be among OSM mappers or OSM users?
>
>


OSM users can easily remove stuff in there pre filtering of OSM data. So
it is not an issue for them.




_______________________________________________
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

Brian Prangle-2
I've not participated in this debate because I have no strong views either way and no specialist knowledge to contribute. However I don't think a decision has been reached here as there are roughly equal numbers for and against and those  "just commenting" from a thread population of 17 - hardly representative of the UK OSM community.

I'd like to develp Colin's emphasis on process on how we can arrive at a decision and what follows from that decision and ifany of  you see a role for the UK Chapter in all of this

We can have a Loomio vote but I would suggest we set a minimum number of voters for it to be seen as representing the UK community. Might I suggest 60?  I think that's roughly the number of  users editing the map daily.

If the vote is for retaining historic boundaries then we need a volunteer (before the vote!) to document the wiki, taking on board Frederik's comments
If the vote is for not having them then I suggest a two stage process:
1. All new edits get reverted
2. A plan is drawn up for retaining all the current data by migrating it to OHM and then deleting it from OSM.  That respects all the hard work by Sean. Again identified before the vote takes place! (Might I suggest that those complaining loudest consider stepping forward to do this?)

If we can't get volunteers for these processes then I suggest a vote is not worthwhile

Regards

Brian

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 at 22:53, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 27/08/18 06:05, Martin Wynne wrote:
>> I don't think it's for those who have mapped something in OSM to
>> demonstrate majority support for its retention. I think it is for those
>> seeking to have others' contributions removed to demonstrate a clear
>> consensus in favour of deletion.
>
> Should this consensus be among OSM mappers or OSM users?
>
>


OSM users can easily remove stuff in there pre filtering of OSM data. So
it is not an issue for them.




_______________________________________________
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

Ed Loach-2
In reply to this post by Warin
Warin wrote:

> OSM users can easily remove stuff in there pre filtering of OSM data.
> So it is not an issue for them.

I missed the start of this thread (it was last month - I was nomail) but agree with this. If OSM user's want boundaries from OSM then they can quite happily set up a filter to only get those tagged boundary=administrative or boundary=ceremonial (which has long been used) or boundary=vice_county or boundary=political or boundary=traditional or whatever. My relation boundary checker [1] (which I discover is still running daily) slightly separates out the results into different pages based on boundary=<whatever>

I'm not sure what the difference is between boundary=ceremonial and boundary=traditional (I believe the ceremonial counties generally include the districts which were in the county but now are unitary authorities so not in the boundary=administrative).

Ed

[1] http://loach.me.uk/osm/boundaries/Default.aspx


_______________________________________________
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

Andrew Black
There is a very big difference

- ceremonial counties exist now and so are in scope for OSM.  As you say here are differences between them and admin counties when unitary authorties are involved
 - traditional counties are an attempt to recreate the past 
So I don't think these trad counties have any ceremonial existence any more.  Which means they are just causing confusion.

I live in London. The place I live in has been inb the county of London since 1889. But the traditional county beast says I live in Surrey.


 


I'm not sure what the difference is between boundary=ceremonial and boundary=traditional (I believe the ceremonial counties generally include the districts which were in the county but now are unitary authorities so not in the boundary=administrative).

Ed



_______________________________________________
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
On 19/09/2018 16:04, Andrew Black wrote:

> There is a very big difference
>
> - ceremonial counties exist now and so are in scope for OSM.  As you
> say here are differences between them and admin counties when unitary
> authorties are involved
>  - traditional counties are an attempt to recreate the past
> So I don't think these trad counties have any ceremonial existence any
> more.  Which means they are just causing confusion.
>
> I live in London. The place I live in has been inb the county of
> London since 1889. But the traditional county beast says I live in Surrey.


Then you will be familiar with the annual boat race between Oxford and
Cambridge universities, at the start of which they toss a coin to decide
who will row from the 'Surrey station' and who from the 'Middlesex
station'. These counties still have cultural significance today.


--

Steve


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


_______________________________________________
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


On 19/09/2018 16:57, Steve Doerr wrote:

> On 19/09/2018 16:04, Andrew Black wrote:
>
>> I live in London. The place I live in has been inb the county of
>> London since 1889. But the traditional county beast says I live in
>> Surrey.
>
> Then you will be familiar with the annual boat race between Oxford and
> Cambridge universities, at the start of which they toss a coin to decide
> who will row from the 'Surrey station' and who from the 'Middlesex
> station'. These counties still have cultural significance today.

Just because the sides are named after former counties doesn't mean
those counties still exist. The Isle of Ely doesn't exist as a current
administrative boundary any more either, but that doesn't stop several
organisations based in the area it used to cover having that phrase in
their name. Including, appropriately in this context, the Isle of Ely
Rowing Club :-)

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

Martin Wynne
I'm puzzled by this insistence that we can map only that which is
"current or real".

See for example this node:

  https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2518973091

There is absolutely nothing on the ground. And 1402 is a long time ago
to be current.

But there is a brown sign directing visitors to it:

  https://goo.gl/maps/LSVnemQ5fxw

Martin.

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
1234567