Jump to content

List of UK Counties


Deceangi
Followers 8

Recommended Posts

I have read through this thread (Taken some time) and can't find any reference to vice-counties.

 

These are used in many walks of life, from hobbies (birdwatching in particular) to academia. Their one big advantage is that the are a standard with each area about the same size which would be excellent for filtering. Also because they are a standard there are many utilities such as this one that are excellent.

 

I stand back to be flamed as I know it is late in the day but I only saw this at lunchtime. Go on you know it makes sense , plus they are numbered - I like numbers :)

 

Looks very much like the best suggestion yet. :D

 

The conversion tools look good too. :D

 

Once set up will give an absolute, not affected by parliamentary change. :D

 

Search criteria could be the VC code i.e. 2-5 digits less if you drop the VC. :lol:

 

 

I like this vice-counties idea too. Looks like the divisions have some sense geographically, and are small enough to be precise. If you could search for more than one, that might help those on borders. Guess you could do more than one PQ though.

 

I think this looks like an off the peg ready-made solution, complete with OS grid converter. Set up a thing with the webpage and it could do it automatically, or if Groundspeak wouldn't do it no doubt the Firefox scripting masters would soon come up with an easy link.

 

I also think that it is important that people can know which area their cache is in. If you don't know where the border is, eg not currently shown on the OS map, there will be lots of confusion. This list seems to solve that by allowing easy conversion from the GR which we already have (or Lat & Long). Also allows more number crunching for those that like it as the units are easier to compare.

 

Maybe it also cuts through some of the controversy of which list of whole counties to use.

(Definitely not use all the current weird admin boundaries.)

 

Well worth considering. :huh:

Link to comment

And people wonder why UK counties haven't been implemented before. I would of thought most people would be grateful that it's being seriously considered, but no, some people are too busy sniping with each other and insisting they are right and everyone else is wrong.

 

Even if/when it is implemented there will be a thread on a weekly basis challenging the list, just like 90% of the threads on here are rehashed topics. Then there will be the pedants who insist on emailing owners to tell them 'actually, I think you'll find your cache is 10 yards inside the border of X county'.

 

There will also be 20 odd thousand existing caches with no county listed at all unless the owners are willing to go back and amend their pages. I'm not sure I could be bothered given all the hassle it will no doubt bring.

 

Oh and my opinion on a list - not bovvered. Just get one submitted to Groundspeak before they walk away shaking their heads in disgust.

Edited by Pengy&Tigger
Link to comment

Then there will be the pedants who insist on emailing owners to tell them 'actually, I think you'll find your cache is 10 yards inside the border of X county'.

I agree with this wholeheartedly, but there could be caches several miles inside another County as there are people who refuse to believe that they live within a particular administration boundary. I feel if you are using data then then that data should be as accurate as possible.

 

If there is no set standards (clearly defined boundaries), then it is not worth implementing. The problem with the top running choice (Rutson's list) is that it has no standard behind it, as it does not clearly define an area for each County. So what we will get are Caches which have a muddy existence, in a mixture of each individuals personal choice of County.

 

This would mean that caches several miles inside of one County might only be picked up by PQ of search on another county; this will just cause confusion, and maybe annoy people when they realize they drove past a cache but were unaware of it's existence. This kills the idea for me, as no defined boarders just means the data will become hugely error ridden. I would not be emailing owners over a few feet as that is nothing in terms of the mean error, but 8 or 9 miles could be an error of greater than 40% on some counties.

 

Maybe skipping the counties and using Regions might be better, as these are usually more clearly defined in the majority of peoples minds.

Link to comment

Then there will be the pedants who insist on emailing owners to tell them 'actually, I think you'll find your cache is 10 yards inside the border of X county'.

I agree with this wholeheartedly, but there could be caches several miles inside another County as there are people who refuse to believe that they live within a particular administration boundary. I feel if you are using data then then that data should be as accurate as possible.

 

If there is no set standards (clearly defined boundaries), then it is not worth implementing. The problem with the top running choice (Rutson's list) is that it has no standard behind it, as it does not clearly define an area for each County. So what we will get are Caches which have a muddy existence, in a mixture of each individuals personal choice of County.

 

This would mean that caches several miles inside of one County might only be picked up by PQ of search on another county; this will just cause confusion, and maybe annoy people when they realize they drove past a cache but were unaware of it's existence. This kills the idea for me, as no defined boarders just means the data will become hugely error ridden. I would not be emailing owners over a few feet as that is nothing in terms of the mean error, but 8 or 9 miles could be an error of greater than 40% on some counties.

 

Maybe skipping the counties and using Regions might be better, as these are usually more clearly defined in the majority of peoples minds.

 

So - there'll b a few mistakes. For the rest of the caches it's a significant advantage. People make all sorts of mistakes when they set caches, but that doesn't mean we should prevent them from being set - the same will apply when sating counties.

 

No one will be forcing you to look up caches by county - but please don't try to block those of us who want to do so from doing so with these spurious reasons.

Link to comment

Then there will be the pedants who insist on emailing owners to tell them 'actually, I think you'll find your cache is 10 yards inside the border of X county'.

I agree with this wholeheartedly, but there could be caches several miles inside another County as there are people who refuse to believe that they live within a particular administration boundary. I feel if you are using data then then that data should be as accurate as possible.

 

If there is no set standards (clearly defined boundaries), then it is not worth implementing. The problem with the top running choice (Rutson's list) is that it has no standard behind it, as it does not clearly define an area for each County. So what we will get are Caches which have a muddy existence, in a mixture of each individuals personal choice of County.

 

This would mean that caches several miles inside of one County might only be picked up by PQ of search on another county; this will just cause confusion, and maybe annoy people when they realize they drove past a cache but were unaware of it's existence. This kills the idea for me, as no defined boarders just means the data will become hugely error ridden. I would not be emailing owners over a few feet as that is nothing in terms of the mean error, but 8 or 9 miles could be an error of greater than 40% on some counties.

 

Maybe skipping the counties and using Regions might be better, as these are usually more clearly defined in the majority of peoples minds.

 

So - there'll b a few mistakes. For the rest of the caches it's a significant advantage. People make all sorts of mistakes when they set caches, but that doesn't mean we should prevent them from being set - the same will apply when sating counties.

 

No one will be forcing you to look up caches by county - but please don't try to block those of us who want to do so from doing so with these spurious reasons.

What is spurious about the reason, I have worked with data for 25 yrs, and there is one thing I understand, erroneous data is annoying and at best useless. I have brought to the table ideas, not looked at someones half baked list which defines no physical boundaries, but can clearly can encroach across them, and you have shunned them; why?

Edited by Moote
Link to comment

I think the point is that adopting Rutson's list ADDS one more way for people to search.

 

Yes it might not be perfect and chances are people will log their caches in the wrong location but that doesn't really matter as the actual co-ords will still be in.

 

I probably wont use the new search function but that's not a reason to stop anyone else doing so. If this was a discussion regarding removing a search choice to replace it with this list then maybe it would need closer examination.

 

:D

Link to comment

Which list falls in with the Postcodes ?

 

Thats obviously the way to go because as was mentioned the Post Office (bless their cotton socks ) have not changed hugely for a while apart from things like Wirral postcodes back to original CH :D

 

Sorry this is a completely unworkable suggestion. Our office is clearly in Leicestershire yet the postcode is CV10 and the post town is Nuneaton in Warwickshire. All too confusing.

 

Philip

 

And our Postcode is PL - Plymouth in Devon - Yet we're in COrnwall *Mutters muchly*

 

YET - I feel we need to draw to a conclusion quicklyish or we'll miss the opportunity to have the Counties option at all.

 

Yet when we search , we do use postcodes don`t we ??

 

All that is needed is a list of counties which is nearest to those post codes

 

doesnt have to be exact

 

just get you into the rough area , after all , its the co-ords that count isnt it ?

 

:D

Link to comment

I have read through this thread (Taken some time) and can't find any reference to vice-counties.

 

These are used in many walks of life, from hobbies (birdwatching in particular) to academia. Their one big advantage is that the are a standard with each area about the same size which would be excellent for filtering. Also because they are a standard there are many utilities such as this one that are excellent.

 

I stand back to be flamed as I know it is late in the day but I only saw this at lunchtime. Go on you know it makes sense , plus they are numbered - I like numbers :)

 

Looks very much like the best suggestion yet. :D

 

The conversion tools look good too. :D

 

Once set up will give an absolute, not affected by parliamentary change. :D

 

Search criteria could be the VC code i.e. 2-5 digits less if you drop the VC. :lol:

 

 

I like this vice-counties idea too. Looks like the divisions have some sense geographically, and are small enough to be precise. If you could search for more than one, that might help those on borders. Guess you could do more than one PQ though.

 

I think this looks like an off the peg ready-made solution, complete with OS grid converter. Set up a thing with the webpage and it could do it automatically, or if Groundspeak wouldn't do it no doubt the Firefox scripting masters would soon come up with an easy link.

 

I also think that it is important that people can know which area their cache is in. If you don't know where the border is, eg not currently shown on the OS map, there will be lots of confusion. This list seems to solve that by allowing easy conversion from the GR which we already have (or Lat & Long). Also allows more number crunching for those that like it as the units are easier to compare.

 

Maybe it also cuts through some of the controversy of which list of whole counties to use.

(Definitely not use all the current weird admin boundaries.)

 

Well worth considering. :huh:

 

Nate I'll be able to post a definitive list for the UK Mainland shortly after Noon (GMT) on Saturday. The list for Northern Ireland is a seperate issue which we will have resolved in a short period after the mainland one has. Dependant on which choice is made, there will be another issue to resolve before we will be able to supply the definitive list for Northern Ireland.

 

With our esteemed reviewer having made the declaration that he will be able to post a definitive list to the lackeys by noon tomorrow, I would have thought at the very least he would have made some comment on this excellent suggestion by garyhoney.

 

QUOTE(OpinioNate @ Feb 15 2008, 12:06 AM) *

 

I appreciate your efforts in compiling a list. It would be a good idea to post the list here when completed so a consensus can be reached before updating the site since there seems to be some disagreement.

 

Looks like the lackeys think we will not achieve a consensus, so perhaps they would delay until we get nearer to one.

Link to comment

Which county is Lundy in? :D

As it's a drop down list, and people are self-selecting, won't they pick the one that seems most appropriate to them, regardless of just where the boundary is now? If they're looking for something that's not there, they'll pick the next most satisfactory. So long as there's something that sounds plausable on the list, they shouldn't be too unhappy.

 

As I like offshore islands, I'm wondering about the Hebrides (inner and outer) or will they just be the Western Isles? I think the Scillies, Anglesey, Bailiwick of Jersey and Bailiwick of Guernsey (including Alderney, Herm, and Sark), IOM, IOW, Skye and Mull should be listed seporatly. Maybe Arran too. And Islay...

 

Here's a handy list.

 

No mention of Steep or Flat Holm though... :D

Link to comment

I'm trying to work out what benefit any of this brings, except perhaps to people who want to do county challenges. (But then that gets to be self-defining; you might as well have the postcodes as well, so people can do postcode challenges, etc).

 

On Rutson's list I counted (very quickly) 131 counties (etc) for the British Isles. That's almost 50% more subdivisions than Groundspeak currently has listed for the USA, Canada, Australia, and Germany combined (with a total of around 350,000 caches). Texas is bigger than the entire British Isles and has a broadly comparable number of caches, and they seem to manage just fine.

 

The argument that "we want to do this, it doesn't affect people who don't" is not in my opinion very accurate either. Placing a cache will require you to navigate a huge drop-down list. And as others have pointed out, there will be endless scope for people to send snarky mails - to cache owners but also the reviewers - along the lines of "excuse me, you may think the village of Grarg is in Blargshire, but in fact since the Local Government (Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder) Act of 1845, it's in Fargshire, apart of course from the dependent hamlet of Squarg which has been considered an enclave of Wargshire since the Act of Boredom of 1512, so kindly change it my good fellow".

 

Placing caches seems to be fraught enough as it is for what's meant to be "only a game". It's not as if that many people in the UK have a particularly visceral attachment to their county anyway.

Edited by sTeamTraen
Link to comment

I'm trying to work out what benefit any of this brings, except perhaps to people who want to do county challenges.

I sympathise with your opinion here: the benefits seem rather slight for all the effort. There is a small benefit to people who live near estuaries, major rivers and inlets (so they can easily eliminate inconvenient caches from searches). Plus, it could occasionally be convenient to see roughly what part of the country a cache is in without having to look at the map.

However, it's been offered and some people want it.

 

Logically, the USA ought to be allowed counties as well: states are only the equivalent of European countries after all.

Link to comment

 

On Rutson's list I counted (very quickly) 131 counties (etc) for the British Isles. That's almost 50% more subdivisions than Groundspeak currently has listed for the USA, Canada, Australia, and Germany combined (with a total of around 350,000 caches). Texas is bigger than the entire British Isles and has a broadly comparable number of caches, and they seem to manage just fine.

 

 

I must admit (said he uncharacteristically throwing his hat into the ring) that I had the same thought yesterday and shared it with Lacy and Deci.

 

Perhaps it would be easier to be a little less parochial and more prosaic.

 

No complex system will satisfy everybody's needs, taboos, mores - call it what you will.

 

Do we really need another 131 (sic) sub-divisions on the drop down list?

 

My suggestion might be more on the lines of - and - I accept this list is almost off the top of my head and not necessarily comprehensive:

 

SE

 

S

 

SW

 

East Anglia

 

Midlands

 

NE

 

NW

 

SScot

 

Central Scot

 

Highlands and Glens

 

Outer Isles

 

N Wales

 

S Wales

 

Ulster

 

Connaught

 

Leinster

 

Munster

 

.....................….and then we can all argue about who comes in what and with whom – if you see what I mean :ph34r::(

Link to comment

This is neatly done on sites like www.monster.co.uk - if you click the REGIONS tab, there's a not-too-long list there. Simple.

 

All this talk about police services, postcodes, granulation, lieutenancies acts, Local Government Act 1972, vice counties, etc.... is completely missing the point. We're not re-writing the Council Tax boundaries. I honestly think some people on this thread are taking the p***.

 

:ph34r:

Link to comment

I applied the draconian 2 part selection to try and avoid a round robin discussion dragging on, meaning we ended up with no implementation due to a site code freeze in the run up to V2. Since then The 3 of us and Croaghan have been having a discussion over things, and had come to the same conclusion as Nick. In that whilst a counties list would allow greater filtering, it would be unworkable and unmanageable for us.

 

Rutsons list would mean 131 seperate Reviewer Queues for us to work with and not the single one which we now use. For me personally due to the way the country is divided up for Reviewing purposes, I'd be looking at approximately 60 to 70 different queues.

 

As a reasonable alternative and very workable for all concerned suggestion has been made. I'm closing the original poll of opinions [the large majority had expressed a preference for Rutsons list], and would like to thank everyone for expressing their preferences and opinions. As stated when I originally asked people to express a preference, we would not please everyone.

 

But at the end of the day we have to have a solution which is workable for all, and does not affect the service provided to the UK Caching Community by the UK Reviewers.

 

As a aid to finalising areas, anyone fancy taking on the job of sub dividing the UK Mainland into the areas along Lat and log with the aim of the map being made available on-line to act as a reference point for finders/owners and Reviewers. if we run along straight lines similar to how we divided up the UK for Reviewer purposes, it leads to very little confusion. If for example we go along the lines of N51°40 WOO1° it provides clear boundary's these are just examples.

Link to comment

For what it's worth, There's a list of regions for England here.

 

On that basis, I guess Wales would be one region, Scotland perhaps 3 or 4 (help, hopeless Sassenach here), and "the island of Ireland" four (I think there may have read somewhere that there's a dispute about which counties are in "Ulster", but perhaps everyone could get along if we used the same divisions as the rugby teams.)

 

Another advantage of having a reasonable number of regions would be that it could potentially be used to divide up the country, er, nation, er, geopolitical entity, for the purposes of reviewing.

Link to comment

As a aid to finalising areas, anyone fancy taking on the job of sub dividing the UK Mainland into the areas along Lat and log with the aim of the map being made available on-line to act as a reference point for finders/owners and Reviewers. if we run along straight lines similar to how we divided up the UK for Reviewer purposes, it leads to very little confusion. If for example we go along the lines of N51°40 WOO1° it provides clear boundary's these are just examples.

 

Question.

Should we divide the UK up by staightlines, or by clumping Counties together?

 

Straightlines would be easier, but it raises the question of where exactly the South East changes into the South West etc. With County boundaries, the divisions are pretty much already there (arguments about which county verisons notwithstanding)

 

If we go for clumps of Counties, I've already started playing around with Marnanel maps.

 

An example of where I've got up to so far.....

South West England http://marnanel.org/county/1/000000000000,000

South East England http://marnanel.org/county/1/0000000002X,0000

East England http://marnanel.org/county/1/000000008Y000000

West England http://marnanel.org/county/1/0000U00MT1000000

North West England http://marnanel.org/county/1/0088700000000000

North East England http://marnanel.org/county/1/000S000000000000

 

QUICK EDIT:

I've just seen Nick's link to the Regions on wikip, and that certainly seems to be based upon clumps of Counties.

Edited by Jaz666
Link to comment

Now here's a spanner to throw into the works, it's regarding Eckington's list, we live in Lincolnshire which is neither in East Anglia or the Midlands, so where would that leave us??? some say we are in the East Midlands but i don't speak with a Midlander accent. The local army regiment is the Royal Anglian Regiment and we have a Peterborough Postcode. Just up the road they have a Doncaster postcode, where are North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire??? they are part of the old and ancient Lindsey and Kesteven areas of Lincolnshire but are still policed by Humberside police and the Humberside Fire and Rescue provide the fire dept.

Confused?? not as much as we are, as AdrianJohn rightly says don't ever bring back the county of Humberside. The East Riding is a much nicer place.

Just thought i'd throw my pennies worth in

Big Fish :ph34r::(:P

Link to comment

It's well and good producing a simplified "regional" list: it would certainly make the drop-down list more useable. But what's the purpose of it?

 

There needs to be a statement of benefits. As this proposal seems to eliminate the main (albeit dubious) advantage of a "county" list (i.e. you can filter a search to be on one side of an estuary), what are the remaining benefits? If there is nothing justifiable (and I can't think of any), we may be worse off than before - having to maintain data that hardly anyone uses.

 

So can we have a list of the benefits of breaking down countries into regions, please? I'll go with the idea cheerfully then.

Link to comment

Dave and Dave you have mail :ph34r:

 

The thought occurs that whilst there's little chance of the majority of existing caches being updated with the County / Region information, it will Give Clyde a standard set of data to add to GSAK, so that someone can write a macro to fill in the missing information for those of us who keep offline databases.

 

That in itself suggests to me that it is a worthwhile idea.

 

Whilst it would be nice for me to be able make a filter of certain types of caches within County X - just being able to narrow it down to Region X will do as a compromise.

Link to comment

If you not going to split us up into counties, I really can't see any point in splitting us up at all. What would it achieve? It's not going to help with the "across the water" problem that Hazel has explained... or is it?

 

Agrees with my Hon. Devonian friend. I only run searches for my 500 nearest unfound caches, I've never felt the need to do a Cornish Search and a Devonian Search... So unless it's for the major water filled boundary problem - theres no point of even a SW region for me...

 

Though maybe I can see the use to a Bristolian Cacher of not finding caches in Wales.

 

Maybe Countries England/Wales/Scotland/NI/Cornwall/Channel Islands/Republic of Liverpool - would be enough?

Link to comment

Is there really any need to bring counties in to it?

The GAGB tried to bring in regional forums (forae ??) last year - and that seems to have died a death ( the forums, I mean, not the GAGB) (or do I?) :(

 

My primary PQ is set to the 500 closest unfound caches - whether they're in Devon, Dorset, Somerset, Avon, Wiltshire, or Cornwall - although it'd be handy to prevent the Welsh ones popping into my North Devon PQ...... :ph34r:

Link to comment

Whilst it would be nice for me to be able make a filter of certain types of caches within County X - just being able to narrow it down to Region X will do as a compromise.

As no-one answered my question above, perhaps it would be a starter if you'd please explain the purpose of filtering caches to be within "County X" (or Region X) - hopefully I'll see the benefit then, and can judge whether a list is better or worse for this purpose. :ph34r:

 

I can just about see that it would be slightly helpful if you can identify that a cache is on the Isle of Wight rather than mainland Hants, but I've never really grasped why you'd need to eliminate Oxfordshire caches (for example) when looking at a search based on Reading. What I'm trying to say is, why are we looking for an answer without establishing what the question is!

 

I've a feeling that the reason there's been little agreement on this whole idea is that no-one has clearly stated the real caching advantages of any particular list. In other words, no-one has tried to "sell" their favourite.

 

If there appears to be as many disadvantages as benefits with counties or regions, I'd favour the simple breakdown by England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. At least it might help the foreign cachers know which part of the UK they are in. :(

Link to comment

Whilst it would be nice for me to be able make a filter of certain types of caches within County X - just being able to narrow it down to Region X will do as a compromise.

 

I'd agree with that sentiment, and the regions listed on Wikipedia (ie EU constituencies) make a lot of sense. But there might need to be some guidance on where the borders are when choosing the region.

Link to comment

As no-one answered my question above, perhaps it would be a starter if you'd please explain the purpose of filtering caches to be within "County X" (or Region X) - hopefully I'll see the benefit then, and can judge whether a list is better or worse for this purpose. :P

 

I can just about see that it would be slightly helpful if you can identify that a cache is on the Isle of Wight rather than mainland Hants, but I've never really grasped why you'd need to eliminate Oxfordshire caches (for example) when looking at a search based on Reading. What I'm trying to say is, why are we looking for an answer without establishing what the question is!

 

I've a feeling that the reason there's been little agreement on this whole idea is that no-one has clearly stated the real caching advantages of any particular list. In other words, no-one has tried to "sell" their favourite.

 

These are exactly the questions I asked (though with less lucidity) much further up the thread, and you told me I was being picky :). I'm glad we now agree :(

 

It's a basic premise of application design that the first thing you do is define what the purpose of the application is. There's a reason why the system lifecycle is CFADBTIS. You can't jump straight to I :D.

 

Now, to try to answer the question. From my own requirements, and my interpretation of others', I see this list of requirements:

- reviewer requirements

- records (as in most/fastest counties etc)

- caches in specific areas (LQ etc)

- better definition of PQ and other searches

 

Obviously I can't expand on the first requirement :ph34r:

 

The second two are just for enjoyment/interest/amusement. As has already been shown by LQ and previous similar series, these requirements are easily met without any change at all for Groundspeak because the areas can be chosen by those involved and interested in the result.

 

But the real requirement is the last one. And the answer, as I said earlier, is to enable all searches to work by polygon rather than circles. This solves the problems of estuaries being in the way, and enables PQs to be confined to areas that make sense to the recipient. This is far and away the best and most flexible solution for this requirement.

 

Yes, counties - and a range of other political areas - will also go some way to solving the estuary problem. But it's an effect not a cause. The reason why counties may seem to solve the problem is because their boundaries are often based on physical obstructions. But small political areas come with data maintenance issues that ensure that they will never be a complete and sufficiently accurate solution for this requirement.

Link to comment

 

On Rutson's list I counted (very quickly) 131 counties (etc) for the British Isles. That's almost 50% more subdivisions than Groundspeak currently has listed for the USA, Canada, Australia, and Germany combined (with a total of around 350,000 caches). Texas is bigger than the entire British Isles and has a broadly comparable number of caches, and they seem to manage just fine.

 

 

I must admit (said he uncharacteristically throwing his hat into the ring) that I had the same thought yesterday and shared it with Lacy and Deci.

 

Perhaps it would be easier to be a little less parochial and more prosaic.

 

No complex system will satisfy everybody's needs, taboos, mores - call it what you will.

 

Do we really need another 131 (sic) sub-divisions on the drop down list?

 

My suggestion might be more on the lines of - and - I accept this list is almost off the top of my head and not necessarily comprehensive:

 

...................... etc

 

Ulster

 

Connaught

 

Leinster

 

Munster

 

.....................….and then we can all argue about who comes in what and with whom – if you see what I mean :P:ph34r:

 

Since I live in N.Ireland I won't comment on what might suit 'mainland' cachers. I don't however see the point of splitting Ireland into the 4 provinces. For example Ulster includes County Donegal which is a long way west of cachers in Belfast whilst other provinces would be nearer.

 

I use a series of PQ's which allows me to store and update all caches in both NI and ROI on GSAK. I then filter them as I need them. I know that quite a few cachers over here do the same. Province divisions as suggested will do nothing for me. Equally, county divisions would not benefit me.

 

Whatever way reviewers wish to divide their areas and responsibilities is up to them. It won't affect me, my cache reports will be dealt with by someone!

 

Although I said I wouldn't comment :( it does seem to me that the whole thing is a bit of an over elaboration. Anytime I've cached on the mainland I've just centered a PQ on where I'm staying and chosen a distance. If that didn't quite get what I wanted, a further PQ, filter and merge in GSAK did the trick. How can artifical divisions match personal selection?

Link to comment

 

Ulster

 

Connaught

 

Leinster

 

Munster

 

.....................….and then we can all argue about who comes in what and with whom – if you see what I mean :blink::D

 

sTeamTraen - There is no dispute about which counties are in Ulster. There are 9 counties. The province itself dates back to pre written times - well before the formation of the States that are now on the Island. Northern Ireland contains 6 of these counties and the remaining 3 are part of the Republic. The dispute you read about may be this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derry-Londonderry_name_dispute - that's one good reason not to use Irish counties for geocaching!

 

Looking back over the conversation here there has been much discussion of modern administrative provinces and traditional ones. Whatever you do in Northern Ireland please don't use the current 20+ administrative areas!

 

The topic title refers to 'UK Counties'. I would object to any of the above provinces being listed under the country of the UK or a description of British Isles.

 

Personally I think gc.com needs to refine its idea of a country away from a political entity to a grographic one. If we had 'psuedo geographic countries' on gc.com of 'Ireland' and 'Great Britain' that refer to the two main islands and the smaller islands associated with each things would be easier. By all means explain on gc.com that this geographical breakdown is done for geocaching convenience and is making no assertion whatsoever about politics! E.g. a cacher in Antrim could select to see all caches within a 100 km radius and end up getting caches in Scotland; more useful would be the ability to ask for all caches within 100 km and that are on the Island of Ireland. This would then allow the breakdown that Eckington suggested to be used if a more fine grained breakdown is needed.

 

As someone sensibly pointed out earlier people are not being asked to redraw the council tax boundaries! The modern administrative regions need not be what is chosen, what is useful to cachers should be chosen. I suggest we take that one level higher and don't let ourselves be restricted to the political/administrative divisions between countries either and switch to what makes more sense geographically.

 

Cheers,

~Albert

 

p.s. I'll be travelling for the next while and probably won't be able to participate further in the discussion. So sorry for the long post.

Link to comment

But the real requirement is the last one. And the answer, as I said earlier, is to enable all searches to work by polygon rather than circles. This solves the problems of estuaries being in the way, and enables PQs to be confined to areas that make sense to the recipient. This is far and away the best and most flexible solution for this requirement.

Agreed: and IMO this is the only worthwhile solution. We have "caches along a route" queries. So why not "caches within a polygon"?

 

For those who want to get lists of caches in counties, define what you consider to be your county as a polygon. Then save it so that others can use the same definition, in similar fashion to "caches along a route".

So you could define a polygon and call it "Cheshire Ceremonial County" (for example). You could base it on Rutson's List, or Vice-Counties, or physical boundaries or whatever is most useful.

 

(For those who haven't used "caches along a route", you can define a line using Memory Map or Google Earth and request a list of caches within a specified distance of the line. The line or "route" can then be named and saved for public use.)

 

:blink: You mean this disscussion is still going on :D

Your never going to agree, so just give up now or just make a decision before someone comes up with another bright idea for everyone to discuss the pros and cons :mad::mad:

Yes, why not just rush into a "solution" that people will complain about for years? :mad::mad:

Edited by Happy Humphrey
Link to comment

 

On Rutson's list I counted (very quickly) 131 counties (etc) for the British Isles. That's almost 50% more subdivisions than Groundspeak currently has listed for the USA, Canada, Australia, and Germany combined (with a total of around 350,000 caches). Texas is bigger than the entire British Isles and has a broadly comparable number of caches, and they seem to manage just fine.

 

 

I must admit (said he uncharacteristically throwing his hat into the ring) that I had the same thought yesterday and shared it with Lacy and Deci.

 

Perhaps it would be easier to be a little less parochial and more prosaic.

 

No complex system will satisfy everybody's needs, taboos, mores - call it what you will.

 

Do we really need another 131 (sic) sub-divisions on the drop down list?

 

My suggestion might be more on the lines of - and - I accept this list is almost off the top of my head and not necessarily comprehensive:

 

SE

 

S

 

SW

 

East Anglia

 

Midlands

 

NE

 

NW

 

SScot

 

Central Scot

 

Highlands and Glens

 

Outer Isles

 

N Wales

 

S Wales

 

Ulster

 

Connaught

 

Leinster

 

Munster

 

.....................….and then we can all argue about who comes in what and with whom – if you see what I mean :D:blink:

Now I like this idea; did I not suggest it several post back?

 

Oh no, that might kill this idea now :)

Link to comment

A vote for RUTSON'S PATENT LIST OF UK COUNTIES. :drama:

 

The administrative lists are easier to manage but subject to government shenanigans more frequently than our needs allow. The list shows a longer perspective.Where do itsnotaboutthenumbers.com get their list? That's what I really want. Unitary authorities are what really muck you about...

 

Sorry I didn't chip in earlier: I've been away caching, planning caching (yes it is possible :drama:) and doing jobs I put off because I was caching.

Edited by Dizzley
Link to comment

If we're not going to go the whole hog and go with Rutson's or a similar list ( and I understand that it would make the reviewer's job more complicated and by that fact we shouldn't) then I personally think that we should just leave things as they are.

 

We wont really gain from having caches split is very general N, S etc groups so why change?

 

Just my thoughts. :drama:

Link to comment

I think that if there's to be a counties list then it would be best to have a list where the boundaries won't be argued about. From that point of view I think that the vice-counties list mentioned by martlakes is the best idea.

 

However, I can see the problems with a list of this level of detail, particularly for the reviewers. (And for me - the problems with a more detailed list is that my geography is so bad I wouldn't know which areas to include or exclude! :drama: ) From that point of view the simplified list suggested by Eckington sounds best. And in practice that's the list I'd probably use - it sorts out the "across the water" problems and I know roughly where the areas are.

 

So, possible best of both worlds? Go for the simplified list just now but also ask nicely :drama: and see if either Groundspeak or Clyde @ GSAK could add an automatic conversion of the co-ords to give the vice-county as well.

Edited by Rambling Meanderers
Link to comment

Just had a look at how one property selling /renting site has split the U.K.

 

They have 24 regions.

 

England

E.Anglia

E.Midlands

London

North

N.East

S.East

S.West.

W.Midlands

Yorkshire and Humberside

 

Scotland

C Scotland

Edinburgh

Glasgow

Highlands and islands

Lowlands

 

Wales

M.Wales

N.Wales

S.Wales

W.wales

 

N.Ireland

C.Antrim

C.Armagh

C.Down

C.Fermanagh

C.Londonderry

C.Tyrone

Link to comment

If we're not going to go the whole hog and go with Rutson's or a similar list ( and I understand that it would make the reviewer's job more complicated and by that fact we shouldn't) then I personally think that we should just leave things as they are.

 

We wont really gain from having caches split is very general N, S etc groups so why change?

 

Just my thoughts. :drama:

 

Sorry but I completely disagree. I think a regional split is a great idea and I can think of three personal examples stringht away where it would help me. Here they are as exmples of how they would help me - I cache in three main areas and each would benefit from a filter....

 

Bristol - I can filter out caches in South Wales so I don't have to pay a toll on the bridge

 

Swansea - I can filter out caches in Lundy and Devon

 

East Anglia - I can filter out those pesky unfound caches across the North Sea! :drama:

Link to comment

Sorry but I completely disagree. I think a regional split is a great idea and I can think of three personal examples stringht away where it would help me. Here they are as exmples of how they would help me - I cache in three main areas and each would benefit from a filter....

 

Bristol - I can filter out caches in South Wales so I don't have to pay a toll on the bridge

 

Swansea - I can filter out caches in Lundy and Devon

 

East Anglia - I can filter out those pesky unfound caches across the North Sea! :drama:

Not to gainsay your general principle, which is perfectly valid, but there are other ways of resolving those particular problems.

 

By "across the North Sea", presumably you mean in other countries? If so then just search for caches in the UK rather than by distance from a point.

 

The other two problems would presumably be solved, as has been mentioned before in this thread, by changing UK to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 8
×
×
  • Create New...