thesweetcheat wrote: Rhiannon wrote: yep reckon you're right. The photo's missing the gate I got through, curiously, that must be newer than I thought. But it does seem like it's on the boundary line.
Of course, a boundary could have incorporated a feature (like a stone) that was there already.
I had a look at some 25" OS maps of this today. Going from 1886 up until the present, the OS have never shown a boundary feature across that field. So if there was a boundary it was removed a while back (or the OS got it wrong, which happens).
Reply | with quote | Posted by thesweetcheat 28th July 2010ce 18:48 |
Please look at my stone (Rhiannon, Jul 27, 2010, 20:10)- Re: Please look at my stone (megadread, Jul 27, 2010, 20:12)
- Re: Please look at my stone (thesweetcheat, Jul 27, 2010, 20:15)
- Re: Please look at my stone (goffik, Jul 27, 2010, 20:16)
- Re: Please look at my stone (postman, Jul 27, 2010, 20:27)
- Re: Please look at my stone (tjj, Jul 27, 2010, 20:28)
- Re: Please look at my stone (Rhiannon, Jul 27, 2010, 20:29)
- Fin-shaped standing stone (StoneGloves, Jul 27, 2010, 20:33)
- Re: Please look at my stone (wideford, Jul 27, 2010, 21:18)
- Re: Please look at my stone (moss, Jul 27, 2010, 21:26)
- Re: Please look at my stone (Rhiannon, Aug 04, 2010, 13:01)
|
|