|
Post by islington on Sept 16, 2022 10:50:46 GMT
Also, on the 1885-1918 map, Windsor incorrectly omits Eton.
|
|
|
Post by parlconst on Sept 16, 2022 15:44:02 GMT
Also, on the 1885-1918 map, Windsor incorrectly omits Eton. Thanks for this - now corrected.
(I've noticed that for some browsers the update does not appear even after a page refresh, which I think is something to do with the interface between google and umap using a cached version. If others have this problem, let me know, and I can try to create a complete new map, rather than amending the existing one, which hopefully should solve it.)
|
|
|
Post by islington on Sept 16, 2022 16:05:30 GMT
Also, on the 1885-1918 map, Windsor incorrectly omits Eton. Thanks for this - now corrected.
(I've noticed that for some browsers the update does not appear even after a page refresh, which I think is something to do with the interface between google and umap using a cached version. If others have this problem, let me know, and I can try to create a complete new map, rather than amending the existing one, which hopefully should solve it.)
Thanks for this.
When I saw this message I happened to have the site already open, showing Eton as excluded from Windsor, so I refreshed the page. Nothing changed. Then I closed the site and reopened it in the same browser and still no change. Then I shut the site and opened it using a different browser and lo! Eton is in Windsor.
I'll let you know if I spot anything else, but it's a wonderful site notwithstanding the odd wrinkle.
|
|
|
Post by parlconst on Sept 16, 2022 16:11:18 GMT
Thanks for this - now corrected.
(I've noticed that for some browsers the update does not appear even after a page refresh, which I think is something to do with the interface between google and umap using a cached version. If others have this problem, let me know, and I can try to create a complete new map, rather than amending the existing one, which hopefully should solve it.)
Thanks for this.
When I saw this message I happened to have the site already open, showing Eton as excluded from Windsor, so I refreshed the page. Nothing changed. Then I closed the site and reopened it in the same browser and still no change. Then I shut the site and opened it using a different browser and lo! Eton is in Windsor.
I'll let you know if I spot anything else, but it's a wonderful site notwithstanding the odd wrinkle.
If I'm not the only one having a problem with the embedded map still showing the old version, I will see what I can do to create a version which loads correctly every time.
|
|
|
Post by parlconst on Sept 16, 2022 16:25:47 GMT
I think the updated version should now load (at least after a page refresh). I cloned the map within umap, which fooled Google sites to think it was different, so it didn't try to fetch the cached version. (As you can tell, I'm no technical expert.)
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,032
|
Post by ilerda on Sept 16, 2022 22:02:47 GMT
I’d seen and explored the site before but missed the collated maps pages. They’re absolutely exquisite and a real public service. Well done and thank you for all the effort you’ve put in to them parlconst
|
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,558
Member is Online
|
Post by cibwr on Sept 18, 2022 8:04:12 GMT
If you ever get the chance - have a look at the report of the commissioners for the 1832 review, exquisite hand coloured maps of the boroughs with descriptions of the electors. Absolutely beautiful
|
|
|
Post by islington on Dec 5, 2022 17:24:28 GMT
Apropos my earlier disquisition on this subject in another thread, here's a handsome map I've come across that seems to show the two-member Finsbury constituency as it existed 1832 - 1868.
I've no idea what the areas shown within it are supposed to be - they look like polling districts but at such an early date, they can't be (and anyway, while the external boundary looks right, they don't follow the internal boundaries between parishes).
Finsbury itself - the actual part of London I'd mean by that name - is far smaller. On the map I'd say it's undoubtedly areas Y and Z, and I suppose also X; U, V and W at a bit of a stretch; but definitely no more than that.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,678
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Dec 5, 2022 18:46:22 GMT
Apropos my earlier disquisition on this subject in another thread, here's a handsome map I've come across that seems to show the two-member Finsbury constituency as it existed 1832 - 1868.
I've no idea what the areas shown within it are supposed to be - they look like polling districts but at such an early date, they can't be (and anyway, while the external boundary looks right, they don't follow the internal boundaries between parishes). There's too many to be wards, I'd say probably census enumeration districts. Whitby had about 15 for a population of about 15,000.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Dec 17, 2022 13:05:08 GMT
This is to express once more my appreciation of the site set up by parlconst and in particular for making me aware of something I'd never noticed before, the gloriously complicated involution of the boundary from 1885 to 1918 between NW Durham and Chester-le-Street in the Craghead area. You can follow most of it on the NLS site on the Durham XII SE map published 1898. Going from S to N, all the boundary has to do is get from its entry point (let's call it 'A') on the southern edge of the map on the eastern side of Wheatleygreen Lane (if you follow it across the map you'll see why I specify 'the eastern side') to its exit point ('B') on the northern edge where it follows the eastern perimeter of Actondene Wood. But the route by which it gets from 'A' to 'B' has to be seen to be believed. Here's the link to the map on the NLS site if you want to see for yourself. maps.nls.uk/view/101099594 I think this has to be my nomination for the coveted 'Most Crazily Convoluted Constituency Boundary of All Time' award.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,341
|
Post by YL on Dec 18, 2022 11:07:50 GMT
This is to express once more my appreciation of the site set up by parlconst and in particular for making me aware of something I'd never noticed before, the gloriously complicated involution of the boundary from 1885 to 1918 between NW Durham and Chester-le-Street in the Craghead area. You can follow most of it on the NLS site on the Durham XII SE map published 1898. Going from S to N, all the boundary has to do is get from its entry point (let's call it 'A') on the southern edge of the map on the eastern side of Wheatleygreen Lane (if you follow it across the map you'll see why I specify 'the eastern side') to its exit point ('B') on the northern edge where it follows the eastern perimeter of Actondene Wood. But the route by which it gets from 'A' to 'B' has to be seen to be believed. Here's the link to the map on the NLS site if you want to see for yourself. maps.nls.uk/view/101099594 I think this has to be my nomination for the coveted 'Most Crazily Convoluted Constituency Boundary of All Time' award. It was a Sessional Division boundary, presumably based on an older parish boundary since tidied up?
|
|
|
Post by islington on Dec 18, 2022 12:39:26 GMT
This is to express once more my appreciation of the site set up by parlconst and in particular for making me aware of something I'd never noticed before, the gloriously complicated involution of the boundary from 1885 to 1918 between NW Durham and Chester-le-Street in the Craghead area. You can follow most of it on the NLS site on the Durham XII SE map published 1898. Going from S to N, all the boundary has to do is get from its entry point (let's call it 'A') on the southern edge of the map on the eastern side of Wheatleygreen Lane (if you follow it across the map you'll see why I specify 'the eastern side') to its exit point ('B') on the northern edge where it follows the eastern perimeter of Actondene Wood. But the route by which it gets from 'A' to 'B' has to be seen to be believed. Here's the link to the map on the NLS site if you want to see for yourself. maps.nls.uk/view/101099594 I think this has to be my nomination for the coveted 'Most Crazily Convoluted Constituency Boundary of All Time' award. It was a Sessional Division boundary, presumably based on an older parish boundary since tidied up? Indeed, as were the five detached parts of Chester-le-Street division scattered across north western Durham, some of which were a very long way indeed from the main body of C-le-S and one of which improbably gave it a shared boundary with Barnard Castle division. For similar reasons NW Durham had at least three detached parts as did Mid Durham.
The earliest generation of maps of Co Durham on the NLS site predate the 1885 distribution and the rationalization of parishes that took place around the same time. They therefore represent the original arrangement of wards, parishes and townships in the county and it's just bewildering. There is a vast proliferation of detached parts and the whole mess is complicated still further by the common practice of extending boundaries to include roads - so that a parish or township would include a long tendril comprising just the road itself, perhaps extending for hundreds of yards or even a mile or more, with different parishes or townships on either side.
Huge commendation for the original OS bods that took the trouble to capture all this for posterity.
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Dec 18, 2022 13:05:19 GMT
It was a Sessional Division boundary, presumably based on an older parish boundary since tidied up? Indeed, as were the five detached parts of Chester-le-Street division scattered across north western Durham, some of which were a very long way indeed from the main body of C-le-S and one of which improbably gave it a shared boundary with Barnard Castle division. For similar reasons NW Durham had at least three detached parts as did Mid Durham.
The earliest generation of maps of Co Durham on the NLS site predate the 1885 distribution and the rationalization of parishes that took place around the same time. They therefore represent the original arrangement of wards, parishes and townships in the county and it's just bewildering. There is a vast proliferation of detached parts and the whole mess is complicated still further by the common practice of extending boundaries to include roads - so that a parish or township would include a long tendril comprising just the road itself, perhaps extending for hundreds of yards or even a mile or more, with different parishes or townships on either side.
Huge commendation for the original OS bods that took the trouble to capture all this for posterity. There is still a tendril or two lurking in Durham's modern maps. For instance, Willington and Hunwick stretches along a track (which would have presumably been a road in the past) - this is in Brancepeth parish but is largely surrounded by Brandon and Byshottles.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Dec 18, 2022 18:43:07 GMT
Presumably a lot of these detached parts were originally intended to give parishes an area of upland pasture as well as a lowland area better suited for arable farming, in the same way as further south you often find parishes called eg Dry and Fen Drayton which were clearly once a single parish.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Dec 21, 2022 11:47:44 GMT
This is to express once more my appreciation of the site set up by parlconst and in particular for making me aware of something I'd never noticed before, the gloriously complicated involution of the boundary from 1885 to 1918 between NW Durham and Chester-le-Street in the Craghead area. You can follow most of it on the NLS site on the Durham XII SE map published 1898. Going from S to N, all the boundary has to do is get from its entry point (let's call it 'A') on the southern edge of the map on the eastern side of Wheatleygreen Lane (if you follow it across the map you'll see why I specify 'the eastern side') to its exit point ('B') on the northern edge where it follows the eastern perimeter of Actondene Wood. But the route by which it gets from 'A' to 'B' has to be seen to be believed. Here's the link to the map on the NLS site if you want to see for yourself. maps.nls.uk/view/101099594 I think this has to be my nomination for the coveted 'Most Crazily Convoluted Constituency Boundary of All Time' award. I am having difficulty reading the map, because there are multiple variations of dotted lines and the shades of grey are not easy to distinguish. Following your description, the southern bit on the "eastern side of Wheatleygreen Lane" is the bit I have put in red, but as it goes northwards it splits off into three directions, and it is not clear which one I am supposed to follow (the pink and orange bits). Then, at the northern bit, the "eastern perimeter of Actondene Wood" is blue. But the blue line is dotted, whereas the red line is dashed (so they are probably two different types of boundary, and not both the parliamentary boundary. I can't see the bit in the middle where they are supposed to connect with each other.
|
|
nyx
Non-Aligned
Posts: 592
|
Post by nyx on Dec 21, 2022 12:25:09 GMT
I am having difficulty reading the map, because there are multiple variations of dotted lines and the shades of grey are not easy to distinguish. Following your description, the southern bit on the "eastern side of Wheatleygreen Lane" is the bit I have put in red, but as it goes northwards it splits off into three directions, and it is not clear which one I am supposed to follow (the pink and orange bits). Then, at the northern bit, the "eastern perimeter of Actondene Wood" is blue. But the blue line is dotted, whereas the red line is dashed (so they are probably two different types of boundary, and not both the parliamentary boundary. I can't see the bit in the middle where they are supposed to connect with each other. I had similar struggles, not to mention there is also a section of constituency boundary going up from the western side of Wheatleygreen Lane at the bottom of the map too.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Dec 21, 2022 12:32:14 GMT
This is to express once more my appreciation of the site set up by parlconst and in particular for making me aware of something I'd never noticed before, the gloriously complicated involution of the boundary from 1885 to 1918 between NW Durham and Chester-le-Street in the Craghead area. You can follow most of it on the NLS site on the Durham XII SE map published 1898. Going from S to N, all the boundary has to do is get from its entry point (let's call it 'A') on the southern edge of the map on the eastern side of Wheatleygreen Lane (if you follow it across the map you'll see why I specify 'the eastern side') to its exit point ('B') on the northern edge where it follows the eastern perimeter of Actondene Wood. But the route by which it gets from 'A' to 'B' has to be seen to be believed. Here's the link to the map on the NLS site if you want to see for yourself. maps.nls.uk/view/101099594 I think this has to be my nomination for the coveted 'Most Crazily Convoluted Constituency Boundary of All Time' award. I am having difficulty reading the map, because there are multiple variations of dotted lines and the shades of grey are not easy to distinguish. Following your description, the southern bit on the "eastern side of Wheatleygreen Lane" is the bit I have put in red, but as it goes northwards it splits off into three directions, and it is not clear which one I am supposed to follow (the pink and orange bits). Then, at the northern bit, the "eastern perimeter of Actondene Wood" is blue. But the blue line is dotted, whereas the red line is dashed (so they are probably two different types of boundary, and not both the parliamentary boundary. I can't see the bit in the middle where they are supposed to connect with each other. You are right; it's not easy to follow. Congratulations on a fine effort. The red line is correct. So is the pink line as a continuation of it; it is in fact continuous even though it almost (but not quite) doubles back on itself at several points. From the point at which your pink line stops, entering the village of Craghead on the southern side of Thomas Street, the boundary continues along the southern side of that street until it reaches the junction with Edward Street in the middle of the village. It then heads south on the eastern side of Edward Street. It's still shown as a dashed line, which is the OS way of indicating that this is a Parliamentary division boundary only - so obviously the parish boundary it originally followed had been tidied up by the time this map was published in 1898. The dashes are almost obscured by the ground detail but they can just be discerned if you zoom in closely. The dashed boundary follows the eastern side of Edward Street past the Methodist Chapel and Eastfield Cottages until, about half-way between BMs 506.6 and 460.5 it crosses the road and strikes off to the south across country (where it is reassuringly marked 'Parly.Co.Div. By.' so we know we're on the right lines). It then drops off the southern side of the map, almost but not quite touching the point of entry on the eastern side of Wheatleygreen Lane. If you look at the next map, which is XIX NE, you can see it continues near the western side of Wheatleygreen Lane until it reaches Wheatley Green Burn. From this point it coincides with a parish boundary still existing in 1898, therefore shown as a dotted line, and it goes west along the Burn for a short way then, still following the parish boundary, turns north and back onto map XII SE. It continues until, next to the White House, it finds itself back on Edward Street but on the western side this time, still going north, and then at the junction in the middle of Craghead it turns east, now on the northern side of Thomas Street. Just before it reaches the first 'T' in the name 'Thomas Street' it turns north, still along the dotted parish boundary, and continues until it meets your blue line (ignoring the other parish boundary branching off to the west). (phew)The orange line is not part of the continuous boundary; it is a detached part of NW Durham separated from the main body only by the width of Craghead Lane. There is a smaller detached part of NW Durham near the bottom of the map on the south side of Black House Lane. I hope you have as much fun with this as I did.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Dec 21, 2022 12:59:10 GMT
If it helps I've had a quick look at the corresponding 25" map here maps.nls.uk/view/120935067 from the same period and the boundary is perhaps slightly less difficult to follow. For instance you can see that parcels 141 and 148 just share a common boundary - it can't be more than a few feet in length - with parcel 137; and all of these are contiguous parts of the main body of Chester-le-Street, to which they are joined by a tendril running along (and no wider than) a road.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Dec 21, 2022 13:18:41 GMT
I am having difficulty reading the map, because there are multiple variations of dotted lines and the shades of grey are not easy to distinguish. Following your description, the southern bit on the "eastern side of Wheatleygreen Lane" is the bit I have put in red, but as it goes northwards it splits off into three directions, and it is not clear which one I am supposed to follow (the pink and orange bits). Then, at the northern bit, the "eastern perimeter of Actondene Wood" is blue. But the blue line is dotted, whereas the red line is dashed (so they are probably two different types of boundary, and not both the parliamentary boundary. I can't see the bit in the middle where they are supposed to connect with each other. You are right; it's not easy to follow. Congratulations on a fine effort. The red line is correct. So is the pink line as a continuation of it; it is in fact continuous even though it almost (but not quite) doubles back on itself at several points. From the point at which your pink line stops, entering the village of Craghead on the southern side of Thomas Street, the boundary continues along the southern side of that street until it reaches the junction with Edward Street in the middle of the village. It then heads south on the eastern side of Edward Street. It's still shown as a dashed line, which is the OS way of indicating that this is a Parliamentary division boundary only - so obviously the parish boundary it originally followed had been tidied up by the time this map was published in 1898. The dashes are almost obscured by the ground detail but they can just be discerned if you zoom in closely. The dashed boundary follows the eastern side of Edward Street past the Methodist Chapel and Eastfield Cottages until, about half-way between BMs 506.6 and 460.5 it crosses the road and strikes off to the south across country (where it is reassuringly marked 'Parly.Co.Div. By.' so we know we're on the right lines). It then drops off the southern side of the map, almost but not quite touching the point of entry on the eastern side of Wheatleygreen Lane. If you look at the next map, which is XIX NE, you can see it continues near the western side of Wheatleygreen Lane until it reaches Wheatley Green Burn. From this point it coincides with a parish boundary still existing in 1898, therefore shown as a dotted line, and it goes west along the Burn for a short way then, still following the parish boundary, turns north and back onto map XII SE. It continues until, next to the White House, it finds itself back on Edward Street but on the western side this time, still going north, and then at the junction in the middle of Craghead it turns east, now on the northern side of Thomas Street. Just before it reaches the first 'T' in the name 'Thomas Street' it turns north, still along the dotted parish boundary, and continues until it meets your blue line (ignoring the other parish boundary branching off to the west). (phew)The orange line is not part of the continuous boundary; it is a detached part of NW Durham separated from the main body only by the width of Craghead Lane. There is a smaller detached part of NW Durham near the bottom of the map on the south side of Black House Lane. I hope you have as much fun with this as I did. "Fun"? Is that what you call it? I couldn't find the other sheet "XIX NE", so I just approximated a looping out-and-back-again bit at the southern edge. Ignore the orange and pink bits.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Dec 21, 2022 13:27:53 GMT
You are right; it's not easy to follow. Congratulations on a fine effort. The red line is correct. So is the pink line as a continuation of it; it is in fact continuous even though it almost (but not quite) doubles back on itself at several points. From the point at which your pink line stops, entering the village of Craghead on the southern side of Thomas Street, the boundary continues along the southern side of that street until it reaches the junction with Edward Street in the middle of the village. It then heads south on the eastern side of Edward Street. It's still shown as a dashed line, which is the OS way of indicating that this is a Parliamentary division boundary only - so obviously the parish boundary it originally followed had been tidied up by the time this map was published in 1898. The dashes are almost obscured by the ground detail but they can just be discerned if you zoom in closely. The dashed boundary follows the eastern side of Edward Street past the Methodist Chapel and Eastfield Cottages until, about half-way between BMs 506.6 and 460.5 it crosses the road and strikes off to the south across country (where it is reassuringly marked 'Parly.Co.Div. By.' so we know we're on the right lines). It then drops off the southern side of the map, almost but not quite touching the point of entry on the eastern side of Wheatleygreen Lane. If you look at the next map, which is XIX NE, you can see it continues near the western side of Wheatleygreen Lane until it reaches Wheatley Green Burn. From this point it coincides with a parish boundary still existing in 1898, therefore shown as a dotted line, and it goes west along the Burn for a short way then, still following the parish boundary, turns north and back onto map XII SE. It continues until, next to the White House, it finds itself back on Edward Street but on the western side this time, still going north, and then at the junction in the middle of Craghead it turns east, now on the northern side of Thomas Street. Just before it reaches the first 'T' in the name 'Thomas Street' it turns north, still along the dotted parish boundary, and continues until it meets your blue line (ignoring the other parish boundary branching off to the west). (phew)The orange line is not part of the continuous boundary; it is a detached part of NW Durham separated from the main body only by the width of Craghead Lane. There is a smaller detached part of NW Durham near the bottom of the map on the south side of Black House Lane. I hope you have as much fun with this as I did. "Fun"? Is that what you call it? I couldn't find the other sheet "XIX NE", so I just approximated a looping out-and-back-again bit at the southern edge. Ignore the orange and pink bits. That's it. Congratulations. This was the boundary between Chester-le-Street and NW Durham constituencies from 1885 to 1918. And your loop onto the adjoining map is not far off the mark. Are you seriously telling me that wasn't fun?
|
|