HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In message , at 11:34:57 on Wed, 22 Jul
2009, Roland Perry remarked:
"The Icknield Way used to form part of the boundary between
Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire, and at one time Royston was cut in
two by this boundary."

And thinking of some more examples, the county boundary runs through the
centre of Chorleywood (Herts, and probably Bucks, from memory) and I've
been to one town in the USA where the state boundary (between Georgia
and Tennessee iirc) went through the middle (either along the fairly
small river it straddled, or possibly relocated a quarter of a mile
north on the Main Street). Now that's what I call a legislative
nightmare!
--
Roland Perry

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:34:57 on Wed, 22 Jul
2009, Roland Perry remarked:
"The Icknield Way used to form part of the boundary between
Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire, and at one time Royston was cut in
two by this boundary."

And thinking of some more examples, the county boundary runs through
the centre of Chorleywood (Herts, and probably Bucks, from memory)
and I've been to one town in the USA where the state boundary
(between Georgia and Tennessee iirc) went through the middle (either
along the fairly small river it straddled, or possibly relocated a
quarter of a mile north on the Main Street). Now that's what I call a
legislative nightmare!

It's a common enough situation - the boundary between Gary Indiana and
Chicago Illinois is another one.

I understand that Stringfellow's club in Westminster lost a lot of trade to
Spearmint Rhino's club over the border in Camden, where the rules on lady
display were a lot laxer.

Incidentally, Waggon Road turns into Wagon Road when it crosses from London
to Hertfordshire... Everytime I pass it, I imagine two pouting councillors
sitting in respective town halls with their arms folded, saying "Shan't!"

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In message , Roland Perry
writes

I've been to one town in the USA where the state boundary (between
Georgia and Tennessee iirc) went through the middle (either along the
fairly small river it straddled, or possibly relocated a quarter of a
mile north on the Main Street). Now that's what I call a legislative
nightmare!

One of the classic American cases is Kansas City, one half of which is
in the state of Kansas and the other half in Missouri - but there they
have separate legislatures for the two parts.
--
Paul Terry

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In message , at 14:36:53 on Wed, 22
Jul 2009, Basil Jet remarked:
I've been to one town in the USA where the state boundary
(between Georgia and Tennessee iirc) went through the middle (either
along the fairly small river it straddled, or possibly relocated a
quarter of a mile north on the Main Street). Now that's what I call a
legislative nightmare!

It's a common enough situation - the boundary between Gary Indiana and
Chicago Illinois is another one.

Although that doesn't actually split anything resembling a town. Gary,
IN is the closest, but all of it's actually east of the border.

The example I had in mind was more like (assuming Cambs didn't exist at
all) Cambridge being in Bedfordshire n/w of the river, and Suffolk s/e
of the river.

Of course, we have it a little like that in Nottingham with the
east-west Trent being the boundary (mostly, anyway) between the unitary
City and our equivalent of South Cambs inside Notts.
--
Roland Perry

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009, James Farrar wrote:

David Jackson wrote in
:

The message . li
from Tom Anderson contains these words:

What do
they think "Cheshire" is beyond an administrative or government
concept?

An ethnic group. Whether this belief is correct or not, i cannot say.

A very superior ethnic group!

Amen to that.

One so advanced they've lost the need to make decent cheese, apparently.

tom

--
Ideas are bulletproof. -- V

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, MIG wrote:

On 21 July, 22:43, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, MIG wrote:
On 21 July, 11:13, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
Yes, they can be, but in the real UK the set of government boundaries is
not identical to the set of geographic boundaries.

Aren't all boundaries, natural or artificial, in a sense "geographic"?

Sigh. *For some reason, people think that previous government boundaries
are geographic, or somehow real, but current ones are not.

You get arguments like "Altrincham is administratively in Greater
Manchester, but it's geographically in Cheshire". *Bizarre. *What do
they think "Cheshire" is beyond an administrative or government concept?

An ethnic group. Whether this belief is correct or not, i cannot say.

So nothing to do with geographical or administrative boundaries then.

In what way is the boundary of the territory inhabited by an ethnic group
not geographical?

tom

--
Ideas are bulletproof. -- V

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 11:34:57 on Wed, 22 Jul 2009,
Roland Perry remarked:
"The Icknield Way used to form part of the boundary between Hertfordshire
and Cambridgeshire, and at one time Royston was cut in two by this
boundary."

And thinking of some more examples, the county boundary runs through the
centre of Chorleywood (Herts, and probably Bucks, from memory) and I've
been to one town in the USA where the state boundary (between Georgia
and Tennessee iirc) went through the middle (either along the fairly
small river it straddled, or possibly relocated a quarter of a mile
north on the Main Street). Now that's what I call a legislative
nightmare!

It is now inevitable that someone will mention Baarle-Hertog.

tom

--
Ideas are bulletproof. -- V

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 22, 4:25*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:34:57 on Wed, 22 Jul 2009,
Roland Perry remarked:
"The Icknield Way used to form part of the boundary between Hertfordshire
and Cambridgeshire, and at one time Royston was cut in two by this
boundary."

And thinking of some more examples, the county boundary runs through the
centre of Chorleywood (Herts, and probably Bucks, from memory) and I've
been to one town in the USA where the state boundary (between Georgia
and Tennessee iirc) went through the middle (either along the fairly
small river it straddled, or possibly relocated a quarter of a mile
north on the Main Street). Now that's what I call a legislative
nightmare!

It is now inevitable that someone will mention Baarle-Hertog.

And you just did!

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On 23 July, 00:20, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, MIG wrote:
On 21 July, 22:43, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, MIG wrote:
On 21 July, 11:13, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
Yes, they can be, but in the real UK the set of government boundaries is
not identical to the set of geographic boundaries.

Aren't all boundaries, natural or artificial, in a sense "geographic"?

Sigh. *For some reason, people think that previous government boundaries
are geographic, or somehow real, but current ones are not.

You get arguments like "Altrincham is administratively in Greater
Manchester, but it's geographically in Cheshire". *Bizarre. *What do
they think "Cheshire" is beyond an administrative or government concept?

An ethnic group. Whether this belief is correct or not, i cannot say.

So nothing to do with geographical or administrative boundaries then.

In what way is the boundary of the territory inhabited by an ethnic group
not geographical?

So Cheshire is now a territory? You just said it was an ethnic group.

If Cheshire ever was defined as the area occupied by an ethnic group,
its boundary is probably pretty much the whole world by now.