Saxton talk archive

From Viae Regiae Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archived from Saxton talk on 21 April 2021

Suggested reorganisation of this page

Proposals for discussion David Cant (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Revised 6 April 2021David Cant (talk) 06:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Revised Version

Aims of reorganistion

Maintain manageable page size
Flag points for discussion
Collect related issues together
Record decisions


These would replace the 6 existing sections
1. Glyph identification and tagging vocab
Extended version of table to record decisions made (and link to discussion?)
2. Gazetteers
New table listing gazetters, restrictions on use and links to useful information
3. Progress Table
As existing, updated before team meetings
4 Anything else

End of revised proposals

First draft 31 March 2021

Suggest 5 sections, but only thought about first 3 so far. Comments welcome!
1. Glyph identification and tagging vocab
2. Gazetteers
  (as above) 
3. Other
4. Cross-Checking (when we start doing it)
5. Progress recording


1. Enter query/suggestion/issue under 'New' and sign
2. Record result of discussion and move to 'Resolved'

Suggestions for the improvement of the Saxton main page

Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Checking phase

It would be good to write into the project a checking phase
One idea (which may require some technical development, so may not initially possible), would be to generate pages for each map of every place beginning with 'A', each one with 'B', etc, with a line for each place, showing its symbol extracted from the map, its name extracted from the map, a checkbox to identify an error, and a sign-off box after every 20 or so, that that 20 had been looked over, and was any/all issues had been flagged. (Probably sort each page by symbol, then transcribed name). If this was on a wiki platform, the checkbox could be used to generate an edit, that might slightly change the background for that group (eg give it a green tinge for 'checked'). Rows with flags could then be reviewed in Recogito. -- James Heald (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Let me get EMEW-I working (hopefully by 21 March) and we can take this discussion on from there. Stephen Gadd (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Completing Project Charter

Suggest we complete the Project Charter at the Team Meeting. -- KathrynBullen (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Need for Team meeting

Ideally need to arrange Team Meet this week. -- MichaelHall (talk) 10:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Good idea -- David Cant (talk) 10:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Has a date been fixe for regular Saxton team meetings? Leland Wales team fixed its regular weekly meetings yesterday for each Wednedsay at 6pm, starting w/c March 7th --Colin (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Editorial Questions

Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Questions moved from Main Page

  • QUESTION: Are there additional icons in Saxton's county maps not portrayed in our Symbology/Vocabulary section?
ANSWER (KATY): "There are smaller houses and I've seen a legend somewhere which suggests he was using fonts to differentiate too"
COMMENT (MICHAEL BENNETT): "A lot of these symbols remind me of those I see on maps in the Caribbean from c. 1650-1680. I bet they were using Saxton as a reference point for inspiration"
  • QUESTION (COLIN/KATY): Do the size and format of handwritten place names in Saxton's county maps contain semantic data?
e.g. Saxton Essex county map: The place "MALDON" is written in capital letters
Probably. They should be transcribed as written. Stephen Gadd (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • QUESTION (from Tamsin): I've been using linked boxes to tag places, so I'm essentially mapping the words to a location on the image as well as placing the dots. Is this an unnecessary level of detail? Note this may be answered in Recogito training, in which case I'll come back and edit this question.
Also is there any meaning in a picture of a church that is not red (e.g. Packlesham) and how do we want to deal with superscript-type positioning in writing which if transcribed exactly would be like Packleshma?
The colouring is an embellishment of Saxton's work, I think, and particular to Burghley's copy of the map so probably not significant. Stephen Gadd (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • QUESTION Isn't Temple Sowerby simply an example of a town? As such it shouldn't be listed as a separate Symbology item. Stephen Gadd (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • QUESTION The 'Vocabulary' column in the table below is intended to provide easy-to-remember classification codes for the various glyphs. They won't find their way into EMEW, so can be whatever we find easiest to discriminate between features. So, can we find better terms? (EMEW will record the Wikidata classification). Stephen Gadd (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • QUESTION (KATHRYN): How do we tag islands? Eg The Isle of Axholme.
See here. Stephen Gadd (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • QUESTION (KATHRYN): Are we going to differentiate between trees and those trees which appear to be enclosed by fences?
See here and here. Stephen Gadd (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • QUESTION (KATHRYN): What if river name is in a different place to the gazetteer? Do we use the gazetteer location, or?
If I've understood (not sure that I have!) please use the gazetteer location. Stephen Gadd (talk) 12:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • QUESTION (KATHRYN): Headlands, eg Whitton Ness - do we need another tag name for this kind of feature?
Added. Stephen Gadd (talk) 12:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

404 error message

When no suggestion comes up after "search" in chosen gazetteers, and user then goes to map view, and types in a new version of the place name, e.g. East Ham (as opposed to "E. Ham" which was transcribed, some options appear, but sometimes clicking on the suggested option produces a 404 page iunknown message. WHY? -- Colin (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Because we are not using actual gazetteers in some instances, only a fudged pseudo-gazetteer that allows us to capture map coordinates. Stephen Gadd (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Administrative areas gazetteer

Can the Administrative areas Gazetteer be reprogrammed so that counties are displayed with parish and hundred names? -- Colin (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Probably. Would it be really useful or just nice? Stephen Gadd (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Beacon marking

I found a beacon marked on a hill in one county map. Is this a common feature in Saxton county maps? -- Colin (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
William Lambarde mapped Kent Beacons in a map dated 1585, and they appear to have existed in large numbers in Kent. Beacons represent visual communication in straight lines, but what, if anything, do they tell us about transportation? -- Colin (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
AFAIK they were erected all across the south coast temp. Hen. VIII, and Saxton recorded some of them in Hampshire at least. The ones I've seen references to in manorial court records (concerning their maintenance) were for obvious reasons on high ground, some in quite out-of-the way places, and so I don't think they say anything about transportation. Ogilby noted them too a century later. Stephen Gadd (talk) 06:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


Are we going to ignore hills and mountains? -- Colin (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Rectangular box and Vocabularise, I think. Stephen Gadd (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


Are we labelling hundreds ("HV") with a rectangle (non-linked) using the administrative gazetteer? -- Colin (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Good idea. Stephen Gadd (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Icon: circle with line out of top

See this frequent icon in Saxon Warwickshire map. What is this? -- Colin (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Ooh, I think that's more common on Speed's maps, not sure what kind of settlement is indicated. We should perhaps simply tag them as <spike> and we can worry about what they represent later. The metadata should record the name of the engraver in each instance: I wonder if the spike was a Terwoord trademark, and whether he also engraved some of the Speed maps? Stephen Gadd (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I went to a lovely talk on C18 Scottish estate maps a couple of years ago from near where my mother lives in Dumfriesshire, where a local group has been seeking them out and digitising them. Apparently if you really want to know who made the map, look at the trees, which tend to be quite individual to the map-makers. (At least, for the local map-makers of C18 and early C19 Dumfriesshire). James Heald (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Colin, can you add it to vocab if you haven't already, so those of us with other counties know what icon you mean? TamsinBraisher (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Tamsin: Will do on Thursday. Perhaps also Katy Thornton or Stephen Gadd should give all Saxton team members access to all county maps (but with agreement that markup is only done by an assigned team member)? -- Colin (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Granting permissions in Recogito is a bit of a bore because every user has to be enabled for every document in separate sets of keystrokes. I'd rather only do that when necessary. Colin, would you please see if having Admin privileges on shared documents (such as those I've shared with you and everyone else) allows you to share them with others? Stephen Gadd (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Will do -- Colin (talk) 12:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


Are we putting a linked rectangular box around a whole island, or just a non-linked box around the place name of the island? -- Colin (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Only the name. Linked boxes are strictly for labels in our setup. It doesn't matter if the linked point is inside the rectangle. Stephen Gadd (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


Are we going to mark up lakes with a rectangular box and tag as <lake>? -- Colin (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Good idea, same as parks. Would someone snapshot one and add it to the Vocabulary? Stephen Gadd (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


Do we mark marginalia written on the map with a rectangular (non-linked) box, and then transcribe what we see and tag as <marginalia>? -- Colin (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. Stephen Gadd (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Parks with and without trees

Some parks have trees, some have no trees. Should we tag them differently?
That's interesting, and yes, could be significant. Probably best to have a <park-trees> tag and a <park-bare> tag, so that tagging is explicit and just one click. Again, would somebody please snip and add to the Vocabulary? Stephen Gadd (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Ambox warning orange.svg At the moment both are in as Q2662247. The super-class Q22698 "park" is also available, as are eg Q1307656 "enclosure", Q5375483 "enclosure" (archaeological sense), <more> -- James Heald (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Yellow check.svg From Stephen on Slack, this won't be a problem: "both types of park will be Q2662247 "deer park" , but the one with trees will additionally be Q3241565 "woodland". -- James Heald (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Should we be placing the point in Recogito on the dot that appears in the icon?

Some icons have two dots which may present problems.
Can you please point to an example? (Snip and paste in Slack might be easiest) Stephen Gadd (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


Are we going to ignore trees? -- Colin (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Michael Bennett: I think we should try where possible to pay attention to trees. It could tell us something about patterns of deforestation in England and Wales- something of increasing interest to environmental historians. Centres of nascent industrial enterprise might have been deforested earlier to provide fuel for furnaces? Perhaps we could focus on trees on a second or third sweep of the maps once the initial geotagging of other icons and place names is complete to a sufficient standard. (Type four tildes ~ to auto-insert your name and timestamp)
Agreed. Another case for the Rectangle box. Stephen Gadd (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Ambox warning orange.svg Wikidata has Q10884 as a general item for a tree. There is no separate item for trees plural. Some synonym for a group of trees would be needed. (Though wikidata's mainspace isn't a linguistic thesaurus -- there's a separate Lexemes project for that -- so wd had no separate item for 'copse' or 'spinney'. There are distinct items for Q4421 "forest" and Q1975546 "royal forest", though quite rightly you probably don't want to go there. If we do want to record single and multiple trees, some more suggestions could be useful. James Heald (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
The main issue is that until we collect the tree/trees and other woodland and/or forest data and extract it all out and create a map layer we don't really know whether the glyphs are basically the engraver having fun and filling space, or are an attempt to represent (sort of) tree denisty in given terrain. -- Colin (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Going out on a limb (haha), I've deleted the proposed <tree> and <trees> tags. If anyone finds a feature where a tree is unambiguously used to indicate a single tree rather than woodland (or for that matter a copse) I shall apologise and re-instate <tree>. Stephen Gadd (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Another approach might be to tag only with "tree", but make sure all the trees on a map are within a box that is tagged tree...then the size and distribution of all the "tree" boxes would tell us something? Or we ignore and worry about later...TamsinBraisher (talk) 08:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Also, I looked for the only named tree I know that would have been around in Saxton's time, and it isn't marked (the Rufus Tree). TamsinBraisher (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Uncertainty about what the icon actually is

Some are open to interpretative judgement
We will have to make a note of this uncertainty when geotagging. Should the uncertainty be recorded in the tag box or the comments box?
LPF includes a certainty attribute which can be one of "certain", "less-certain" and "uncertain". It's really intended to indicated the certainty of a geolocation, but we might adopt the same terminology, adapted so that it's clear that it's the glyph we're referring to. So we would add to our tag library the terms <glyph-certain> (optional), <glyph-less-certain> and <glyph-uncertain>. Does that sound reasonable/sensible? Stephen Gadd (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Has a decision be made on this? -- Colin (talk) 09:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
No, awaiting feedback. What do you think, Colin? Stephen Gadd (talk) 12:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Wall of the Pictes

How should we mark up what we now call "Hadrian's wall" -- Colin (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
For now, I suggest a Linked Box connected to a gazetteered point somewhere on or near the wall, in much the same way as named rivers will be tagged. I'll find a way to convert these point features to linestrings when they're ingested by EMEW. Stephen Gadd (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Q57357 "Hadrian's Wall" is there if you need it. -- James Heald (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

David Cant's Questions on Symbols and their Interpretation

Having looked at the maps shared by Stephen Gadd I've come to the conclusion that the settlement categories like village, town and city all exaggerate the importance of the respective settlements. I'd suggest we consider hamlet as the lowest level for this symbol Saxton Symbol- Village.png
and adjust the others accordingly. So
Saxton Symbol- Spire.jpg becomes village
Saxton Symbol- City.jpg becomes town
Use a symbol like the one for Colchester on the Essex map for large towns or cities (sorry, can't work out how to insert an image from 'outside'

David Cant (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Sounds sensible to me. Stephen Gadd (talk) 06:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Colin's Slack Questions

Add <marginalia> to draft Saxton-controlled-vocabulary @Stephen Gadd
Moved from Intro to Table. Stephen Gadd (talk) 09:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Are we sure that Saxton contains no fords? Perhaps we should have <ford> in reserve. I would guess that Leland will have need for <ford> @Stephen Gadd @Michael Hall (edited)
Added. Stephen Gadd (talk) 09:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Propose <symbol-unknown> for unidentifiable symbol in Saxton county maps @Stephen Gadd
I'd prefer that glyphs be either matched roughly to the agreed vocabulary (with a <glyph-uncertain> tag if necessary), or a new vocabulary item added after prompt discussion. Stephen Gadd (talk) 09:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Do we want <river-head> and <river-mouth> in draft Saxton-controlled-vocabulary? @Stephen Gadd @Katy Thornton (edited)
Does Saxton identify any? In any case I don't think the Rivers Gazetteer has any such points included. Stephen Gadd (talk) 09:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
IMO It could well turn out to be useful to distinguish the source of a river (Q7376362 "river source") from its confluence (Q723748) -- confluence points in particular may have real-world identifications (even if they are nowhere near where Saxton places them). Also Q1233637 "river mouth" for where it reaches the sea. -- James Heald (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
OK, adding them to the Rivers gazetteer is now on my to-do list. Stephen Gadd (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Are there any Saxton symbol markings for marsh, or altrnatively are they only marked as text? If text only, do we still not want to label with tag <marsh>? @Katy Thornton @Stephen Gadd
Added. Stephen Gadd (talk) 09:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
I propose adding tree-single and tree-multiple to draft Saxton-controlled-vocabulary as per comment from @Michael D. Bennett about environmental historian interest in deforestation and links to industrialisation. We will be able to produce a rather cool map of trees and/or forests and/or parks-bare and/or parks-trees for the whole of England and Wales and use as an overlay!
We must be very careful about using the word 'forest', which means something very much other than 'woodland'. I'm inclined to think that the number of trees is not any indication of the status or size of woodland, but rather an indication of the space available to the engraver at the particular map scale. I think we should stick with the single <wood> = "woodland" tag. Stephen Gadd (talk) 09:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
See comments about 'trees' above. James Heald (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

More thynges

Are there any mills on the maps -- eg windmills (Q38720), water-mills (Q185187) ? James Heald (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Both added. Stephen Gadd (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Also I don't know if we want Q26678366 for hundred. James Heald (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Added, together with County Stephen Gadd (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Other markings

Having just seen Leicestershire there are two marked areas that are coloured like parks but with a dotted line round them rather than a palisade. One is a detached part of Derbyshire and the other is 'King Ric feld' i.e. the site of the Battle of Bosworth. They can be marked as rectangles, but do we need something in the vocab?
Added <county-detached> and <battlefield>. I suspect there may be more of those. Stephen Gadd (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Also woodland is named as Charnwood Forest, although it's not strictly a forest so how should this be dealt with?
But I think it was technically a forest, no? Langton and Jones have it listed as such here. Or are you saying that it had been disafforested by 1575-ish? Stephen Gadd (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I will check, but I didn't think it was ever a forest in the legal sense Pam Fisher (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Leland 'rode into Charnwood Forest usually called the Waste'. This may suggest there were doubts over its status then. It appears to have been generally believed to have been a royal forest in 19thC, but J.C. Cox (1905) held it had not been a forest since at least 1086, and (although I've not seen the opinion of Langdon/Jones) six other subsequent historians all agree that it was never a forest in legal terms. Suggestions are that earlier confusion was perhaps caused by a very vague western boundary of Leicester Forest Pam Fisher (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
That's interesting! But for the purposes of annotation I think we need to record what we see on the map; so in this case I think it should be tagged as a forest, and background information added - encouraged even - in the Notes section. Stephen Gadd (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I've just added a different 'manor' symbol to the table of symbols, but we need to agree vocabulary for it. Also needs Q number inserting - sorry I don't know what this is. Pam Fisher 4 March 2021 (UTC)
As we're sure that it's classifying the same category of feature as <manor>, I've moved your image to be an additional image for <manor>. What do people think, do we need to have a separate catchword (perhaps <box>?), as we have done with spire/spike for village? Stephen Gadd (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
We need to be consistent in how we treat two different symbols for same thing. Essex and Hants have 'spire' and 'manor', Warws and Leics have neither of these, but instead have 'spike' and what I called 'manor2'. Symbols for 'town' and 'hamlet' are the same. So if we merge the 2 manor glyphs, then we should merge 'spire' and 'spike', but my view would be not to do this as the choice of glyph may indicate a different engraver (or something else). It might be an idea for someone to look at all counties before deciding, as there may be a third (or more) version lurking somewhere, in which case we could just elect for one name. What do others think? Pam Fisher (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I've reinstated your additional row, but with the catchword as <manor-box> as opposed to <manor-buildings>. Stephen Gadd (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Here be Dragons

We don't yet have any classification vocabulary for the maritime embellishments. Do we want anything more specific than perhaps <cetus> ( and <vessel> ( Stephen Gadd (talk) 06:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Someone (sorry, forgotten who) last night suggested "Decoration: sea monster" and Decoration: ship". Katy Thornton


If we adopt David Cant's suggestion of an additional Village size category (I think we should), then perhaps we should change the existing village catchwords to <village-spire> and <village-spike>, and add <village-large>. Searching for either of the old tags will still bring them up, and we'd have the added bonus of them being more descriptive of their categories. Stephen Gadd (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

City without cathedral

I didn't spot until now that we have used 'cathedral' as a proxy for 'city', which doesn't work for places like Southampton that are cities without cathedrals (it has never had one). The glyph for Southampton looks like the glyph we have used for 'cathedral', but without the crossbar of the cross. For now I have tagged Southampton as 'city' but just raising it here to check if that is the right way to deal with it, as there are probably a few similar instances round the country?

Coming back to add that further reading tells me Southampton wasn't actually a city until 1964, it was granted COUNTY status in 1447, so city is not the right tag to use. What can we use for a big glyph like a city but without a cathedral? TamsinBraisher (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

How about using Q515 'city' for the large towns as shown by the glyph for Southampton?
Saxton glyph which label query.JPG
According to Wikipedia, in Saxton's time England only had 22 cathedral cities and Wales 3 [1] which we could continue to tag with Q2977
Suggest 'town-large' for the vocabulary entry. David Cant (talk) 11:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Maybe. But we always had <town> as the catchword for small 'cities'. Is there a separate category clearly identifiable from glyphs rather than background knowledge? What I think we should try to avoid is subjectivity: record (and publish in EMEW) what we actually see, and add interpretative comment in an editorial attribute at a later stage.
Perhaps we could record something more granular in the Notes, with a pseudo-tag in the form <2-5>, where the first number indicates the number of towers or spires in the glyph, and the other number the count of other discernible buildings? Stephen Gadd (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
OK thanks for the clarification. David Cant (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes I agree that this should be about glyph description. When I compared Southampton to Portsmouth, which is another "larger than the standard town" glyph, I see that they both have the spire with a circle in it, I wonder if that is significant? TamsinBraisher (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Portsmouth glyph.png
Mmm, could be. I think we might need to review all of these large town /city glyphs when we can lay them all out side by side at the end of the tagging process. Stephen Gadd (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I've unilaterally decided that we'll simply record a town for now, as detailed in the Vocabulary notes. Stephen Gadd (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Symbol identification by others

Martin and Jean Norgate email:
David Cant (talk) 11:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
For more works by Martin and Jean Norgate, who now seem to live in Cumbria, see Martin and Jean Norgate, The Old Cumbria Gazetteer includes Place Records of locations in the old counties of Westmorland, Cumberland, Lancashire north of the sands, and Yorkshire that are now in one county, Cumbria, including the Lake District, and of other places relevant to any guide book, map or print, that has been studied in the Lakes Guides project. Records are illustrated with extracts from old maps, old prints, paintings and photographs, and modern photographs. digital resource, 2014. -- Colin (talk) 11:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Ferries and Passages

Michael Hall asks, "Do we need a policy regarding ferries and place names that indicate their presence. Gloucester uses the term ‘passage’", and points out that "In modern naming some of these locations may become lost". Although we're generally to be careful to avoid putting any 'spin' on Saxton's prima facie evidence, I think in this case - with our particular eye on transport infrastructure - it would be a very good thing to have a passage or landingstage tag in the vocabulary. You might, incidentally, find many of these points in the 'Landing Places' gazetteer. Stephen Gadd (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Need for text based editorial policy for Saxton

Need for text based editorial policy for Saxton, with sufficient context to show how we have reached the decisions we have reached (to date) on classifying and interpretation of glyphs. I suggest this is created in a Google Doc, with final control given to Katy Thornton after Saxton team has agreed the policies. I would also suggest once the first editorial policy document is created it is named version 1.0 and dated, and that the contents of that Google document is then published on the wiki, with admin privileges only to change it. Then after say two weeks, produce a revised version, version 1.1 (or if major changes version 2.0) and again dated. Don't delete first version, but publish second version as the main wiki page, accessible from the LH wiki sidebar, with a section in the revised version referencing by hyperlink the prior versions, which would remain in the wiki, but with reduced visibility. Necessary, I believe, for our own guidance and sanity, and also for academic credibility. We did something similar back in 2012, when we started the MarineLives transcriptions of English High Court of Admiralty depositions, which we revised till version 6.0. -- Colin (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Estimated total number of glyphs all Saxton county maps

Do we have a preliminary estimate of total number of glyphs on all Saxton county maps, ideally separate estimates for England and Wales?

Do we have the above, but split down for big categories like (a) places (b) topographical features (c) woodland/forests?

-- Colin (talk) 11:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)