|
Post by islington on Dec 21, 2022 14:21:26 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. Sorry, I'm just replying to this again so I can tag parlconst partly because it's only because of his admirable site that I became aware of the wonderful absurdity of this boundary but also because he may find your map helpful when he comes to upload the regional map for northern England.
|
|
|
Post by parlconst on Dec 21, 2022 16:12:22 GMT
I agree with your drawing of the boundary. (I would have attached my image of it, but at the moment I can't work out why I can't get it to display here.) As islington says, I hope to load onto the parlconst website the boundary maps for the whole of Northern England, once the last area (Cumbria) is published in January.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 25, 2022 11:21:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on Dec 26, 2022 4:57:35 GMT
And now back to north with (finally) sensible boundaries in Newcastle. I grew up in this "sub-district"
|
|
|
Post by islington on Dec 26, 2022 12:30:42 GMT
I agree with your drawing of the boundary. (I would have attached my image of it, but at the moment I can't work out why I can't get it to display here.) As islington says, I hope to load onto the parlconst website the boundary maps for the whole of Northern England, once the last area (Cumbria) is published in January. This is my method (doubtless there are other ways).
- Take a screenshot of the image you want to post.
- Upload it to an image hosting site (I use ImgBB, which is free).
- When the image has uploaded, which takes only a few seconds, ImgBB asks how you want to embed the code. The default is 'Viewer links'. You don't want this but if you click on it, it gives you a longer menu including 'BBCode full linked'. Click on that and it generates two or three lines of code with a button saying 'Copy'. Click that.
- Back on the Vote UK site, you need to have your draft reply on the 'BBCode' tab, instead of the default 'Preview' tab. Paste the code at the appropriate point. Then lo! When you switch back to 'Preview' your image should appear.
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
Post by parlconst on Dec 27, 2022 22:28:10 GMT
This is my method (doubtless there are other ways). Hope this helps.
Thanks - I'll use this next time I want to display something here.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 7, 2023 18:49:27 GMT
I am posting to express my appreciation of the continuing efforts of parlconst , whose site now covers the whole of northern England (in addition to central and southern England, which were already included).
I've just spent time gazing at the new maps. Not surprisingly my favourites are the ones showing the boundaries obtaining from 1885 to 1918. I'm intrigued by some of the more chaotic boundaries - not only that between Chester-le-Street and NW Durham as recently discussed on this thread but also the holy mess in the Thorpe Hesley area near Rotherham and also in the village of Barrowby a few miles north of Thirsk (the last of these was entirely new to me).
It's also fascinating to see the way the industrial areas of south Lancs and west Yorks, seriously under-represented prior to 1885, at last received something close to their proper allowance based on population and were divided for the first time into modern-looking single member seats (except for the preservation of a few double seats such as Oldham, Preston, Halifax and a handful of others).
This site is a joy to behold. I can't praise it enough.
|
|
European Lefty
Labour
Can be bribed with salted liquorice
Posts: 5,512
|
Post by European Lefty on Jan 7, 2023 23:15:43 GMT
I am posting to express my appreciation of the continuing efforts of parlconst , whose site now covers the whole of northern England (in addition to central and southern England, which were already included).
I've just spent time gazing at the new maps. Not surprisingly my favourites are the ones showing the boundaries obtaining from 1885 to 1918. I'm intrigued by some of the more chaotic boundaries - not only that between Chester-le-Street and NW Durham as recently discussed on this thread but also the holy mess in the Thorpe Hesley area near Rotherham and also in the village of Barrowby a few miles north of Thirsk (the last of these was entirely new to me).
It's also fascinating to see the way the industrial areas of south Lancs and west Yorks, seriously under-represented prior to 1885, at last received something close to their proper allowance based on population and were divided for the first time into modern-looking single member seats (except for the preservation of a few double seats such as Oldham, Preston, Halifax and a handful of others).
This site is a joy to behold. I can't praise it enough.
Seconded. It really is an amazing resource
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,280
|
Post by YL on Jan 8, 2023 9:53:06 GMT
Those complicated boundaries in some areas are fascinating to try to trace on old OS maps, but not always easily given all the different boundary symbols and footpath symbols etc. I think there's actually an extra complexity in the Thorpe Hesley area which isn't shown at the moment, and that is that the south-easterly of the two detached parts of Hallamshire (1885-1918)/Wentworth (1918-45) had a peninsula reaching all the way to (but not including) Thorpe Street and just wide enough to include the church. It's most clearly shown on this 1935 six inch map, by which time it was just the constituency boundary; the area I'm referring to is area c, "Wentworth Division (Det. No. 2)". Thorpe Hesley wasn't actually united until surprisingly recently: it was historically split between Ecclesfield, Rotherham (Kimberworth) and Wentworth, the Rotherham/Wentworth boundary being the messy one, and the bit in Ecclesfield stayed there until the Rotherham/Sheffield boundary was re-aligned along the M1, I think in the 1990s.
|
|
|
Post by David Ashforth on Jan 8, 2023 11:51:37 GMT
Those complicated boundaries in some areas are fascinating to try to trace on old OS maps, but not always easily given all the different boundary symbols and footpath symbols etc. I think there's actually an extra complexity in the Thorpe Hesley area which isn't shown at the moment, and that is that the south-easterly of the two detached parts of Hallamshire (1885-1918)/Wentworth (1918-45) had a peninsula reaching all the way to (but not including) Thorpe Street and just wide enough to include the church. It's most clearly shown on this 1935 six inch map, by which time it was just the constituency boundary; the area I'm referring to is area c, "Wentworth Division (Det. No. 2)". Thorpe Hesley wasn't actually united until surprisingly recently: it was historically split between Ecclesfield, Rotherham (Kimberworth) and Wentworth, the Rotherham/Wentworth boundary being the messy one, and the bit in Ecclesfield stayed there until the Rotherham/Sheffield boundary was re-aligned along the M1, I think in the 1990s. 1994. From J.G.Harston 's website. mdfs.net/Docs/Sheffield/Borders/
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,607
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jan 8, 2023 11:55:13 GMT
Thorpe Hesley wasn't actually united until surprisingly recently: it was historically split between Ecclesfield, Rotherham (Kimberworth) and Wentworth, the Rotherham/Wentworth boundary being the messy one, and the bit in Ecclesfield stayed there until the Rotherham/Sheffield boundary was re-aligned along the M1, I think in the 1990s. 1994 - but it took over a decade to sort out transfering the recreation ground to Rotherham Council, I was chasing it up in about 2005.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 8, 2023 12:48:06 GMT
Those complicated boundaries in some areas are fascinating to try to trace on old OS maps, but not always easily given all the different boundary symbols and footpath symbols etc. I think there's actually an extra complexity in the Thorpe Hesley area which isn't shown at the moment, and that is that the south-easterly of the two detached parts of Hallamshire (1885-1918)/Wentworth (1918-45) had a peninsula reaching all the way to (but not including) Thorpe Street and just wide enough to include the church. It's most clearly shown on this 1935 six inch map, by which time it was just the constituency boundary; the area I'm referring to is area c, "Wentworth Division (Det. No. 2)". Thorpe Hesley wasn't actually united until surprisingly recently: it was historically split between Ecclesfield, Rotherham (Kimberworth) and Wentworth, the Rotherham/Wentworth boundary being the messy one, and the bit in Ecclesfield stayed there until the Rotherham/Sheffield boundary was re-aligned along the M1, I think in the 1990s. Yes, I agree with your boundary point in Thorpe Hesley. There are other little things as well, and it's an interesting mapping decision about how much detail you want to include. My instinct would be to be as granular as possible, but I can see a counter-argument that the inclusion of too much detail clutters the map and makes it less clear to users. For instance, the way boundaries were defined in Lincs in 1885 had the presumably unintended effect of generating a number of tiny, irregularly-shaped exclaves of Spalding strung out along the Horncastle-Sleaford boundary as it (roughly) follows the river Witham. These aren't shown on the parlconst map. Would it be better if they were? It would be more accurate, obviously; but on the other hand, it would make the map more confusing and harder to follow.
Or again: in the messy area between Richmond and Thirsk & Malton (of which I was unaware until yesterday), between the villages of Leake and Nether Silton the parlconst map shows a largish detached part of Richmond including what is now Carleys Farm. And this is duly marked on contemporary OS maps as 'Richmond Det. No. 3'. But hang on a moment - if that's No. 3, where are Det. Nos. 1 and 2?
The answer comes in the Barrowby area, where there 11 detached parts of Thirsk & Malton of which parlconst has mapped 10 (he has overlooked no. 9, which is west of the village adjacent to Broadbeck House). In T&M Det. No. 6, which covers much of the centre of the village, there are two tiny counter-exclaves of Richmond, indicated as 'a' and 'b', and these are the missing Richmond Det. Nos. 1 and 2.
And here's another interesting one. In Co.Durham, west of the village of West Pelton, Parlconst shows a sizable exclave of NW Durham extending along Twizell Lane and including some territory to the south of Twizell Lane and a larger area to the north of it. But close scrutiny of OS maps shows there's more to this exclave: it does indeed, as parlconst shows, extend along Twizell Lane to the crossroads in the middle of West Pelton, but it doesn't stop there: it puts out further tendrils in all directions from that crossroads, no wider than the roads they follow (and of course following the line of these roads before they were realigned), stretching north and east as far as the main road running east from Beamish and south all the way to Grange Villa, specifically to a point opposite the boundary between parcels 28 and 32 on the OS 25" map dated 1896.
Or again: on the northern fringe of Sacriston the boundary between NW Durham and C-le-S does indeed run along the south side of Cross Lane and the west side of Edmondsley Lane as shown by parlconst. But in between the boundary turns south down the east side of Edmondsley Lane so that the whole of the road itself is included (but nothing either side of it) as far south as Blackburn Bridge.
I am genuinely in two minds about whether this level of detail should be shown. My instinct is to go for the most accurate possible approach; but I entirely see a counter-argument about cluttering the map and possibly confusing users. In any case, it's parlconst's site, not mine, so these decisions are for him not me.
And at the end of the day, it's a wonderful site. I've been looking at it for hours.
|
|
|
Post by parlconst on Jan 8, 2023 18:30:24 GMT
Thanks for your kind comments about the parlconst site.
I was planning to post here that the full boundary maps for Northern England had gone live, but you spotted them before I had chance.
I agree there is a dilemma about how much detail to show, and I realise that I am not always consistent. In general, I try to simplify things in the website's Area Maps & Tables by not creating a new sub-Area if it comprises less than two complete streets; but for the boundary maps shown in the constituency maps section I try to show these as accurately as I can. Because I create the maps by working backwards in time from the present, I can sometimes miss some of the historical deviations from more recent boundaries. I'm always happy to make corrections when I become aware.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 7, 2023 9:39:32 GMT
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,607
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Mar 7, 2023 13:38:32 GMT
Is there a way of using that website without it killing my computer by it trying to load dozens and dozens of interactive maps all at the same time. For instance, by letting me myself select the individual interactive map that I myself wish to look at.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 7, 2023 13:41:18 GMT
Is there a way of using that website without it killing my computer by it trying to load dozens and dozens of interactive maps all at the same time. For instance, by letting me myself select the individual interactive map that I myself wish to look at. By getting a computer that isn't shit?
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 7, 2023 13:56:58 GMT
Is there a way of using that website without it killing my computer by it trying to load dozens and dozens of interactive maps all at the same time. For instance, by letting me myself select the individual interactive map that I myself wish to look at. Does this link work better for you, JG?
The trouble is, I don't know how to access the single maps except via the multi-map page, so you'll have to put up with the map I've kindly selected for you. (In this case, Southern England 1885-1918.) If this link works and there's another one you'd especially like to see, let me know.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,607
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Mar 7, 2023 14:55:29 GMT
Is there a way of using that website without it killing my computer by it trying to load dozens and dozens of interactive maps all at the same time. For instance, by letting me myself select the individual interactive map that I myself wish to look at. By getting a computer that isn't shit? By using a *website* that isn't shit. A website shouldn't force down your throat its entire contents without asking. *ANY* computer system should provide what ***IIII**** instruct it to do, not what it thinks I should accept being thrown at me.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 7, 2023 17:22:10 GMT
By getting a computer that isn't shit? By using a *website* that isn't shit. A website shouldn't force down your throat its entire contents without asking. *ANY* computer system should provide what ***IIII**** instruct it to do, not what it thinks I should accept being thrown at me. This is very harsh criticism of a site that is one of the best things to have happened for years in this area of interest.
If you want to go to the maps section, you have a choice of three time periods: 1885-1950; 1950-1983; and 1983-date. Each of these loads, I think, nine maps. This doesn't work on my phone, I admit, but it has never given me trouble on a proper computer (and I've accessed this site using a number of machines, not just my own) so it doesn't appear to be more than a modern computer should be expected to handle.
Anyway, if you want a link to a specific map the offer stands: let me know the part of the country and the time period that interests you and I'll post a link to a single map.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,280
|
Post by YL on Mar 7, 2023 18:26:06 GMT
Whenever I've seen a map of the 1955-74 boundaries in Sheffield I've always thought they looked like a bit of a dog's breakfast. Park had a weird northward extension into bits of Burngreave, while Hillsborough managed to extend into the city centre and Netherthorpe while avoiding Upperthorpe. The shape of Heeley was a bit strange too.
I wonder how they ended up like that. I guess some of what seems weird to me now was less weird in the 1950s before slum clearance; e.g. the Penistone Road area and Parkwood Springs actually having people living there might have made Hillsborough feel more coherent than those boundaries would today.
An alternative six seat Sheffield based on the 1952-67 wards might be Neepsend: Cathedral, Burngreave, Firth Park, Southey Green Brightside: Nether Shire, Brightside, Attercliffe, Tinsley Park: Moor, Manor, Park, Darnall, Handsworth (there has to be a five ward seat somewhere, and with the wards having been recently drawn it shouldn't matter that much which) Heeley: Sharrow, Nether Edge, Heeley, Woodseats Hallam: Ecclesall, Hallam, Broomhill, Norton Hillsborough: Crookesmoor, Walkley, Hillsborough, Owlerton
Still some oddities but it feels a bit more coherent (especially in Burngreave). Compared with the 1950-55 boundaries Attercliffe rather than Neepsend is the abolished seat.
|
|