Slomska Przech Slomski 2022 Urban Plot Developing A Consistent Definition For Comparative Urban Studies

1089942
research-article2022
JUHXXX10.1177/00961442221089942Journal of Urban HistorySłomska-Przech and Słomski
Original Research Article

Journal of Urban History
Urban Plot: Developing a

1–30
© The Author(s) 2022
Consistent Definition for Article reuse guidelines:

https://doi.org/10.1177/00961442221089942
Comparative Urban Studies sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00961442221089942
journals.sagepub.com/home/juh
Katarzyna Słomska-Przech1 and Michał Słomski1
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to discuss the problem of describing an urban plot and to propose a
definition that can be used in comparative studies of historic towns. The need for a uniform
definition results from comparative research using spatial databases and historical GIS (hGIS).
The article discusses the problems in vectorization of plots for the purposes of hGIS analyses,
as well as the methods of presenting urban plots on historical plans that have been used so far,
on the example of the Historic Towns Atlas series. We compared the results of the analysis
with the plot definitions appearing in the literature on urban studies. Based on the literature
review and research discussed in the article, we developed and proposed a plot definition for
the ontology of historical urban spaces.
Keywords
urban plot, comparative research, hGIS, ontology, Historic Towns Atlases, town plan, urban
studies
Introduction
Plots (or parcels) are often the primary point of reference for urban study analyses. According to
Michael R.G. Conzen, there are three basic elements of the town plan: streets (street-system),
buildings (block-plans), and plots (street-blocks).1 Michael P. Conzen has argued that “[an] indi-
vidual urban plot is a fundamental spatial unit embedded within the town plan” since Lower
Saxony atlases appeared in the 1920s.2 Plots could form the basis for all the comparative
approaches listed by Dietrich Denecke: qualitative, quantitative, temporal, and spatial.3
When engaged in historical research, it can be difficult to indicate the exact location of a
building which no longer exists. However, it is possible to determine on which plot it was situ-
ated, and the location of that plot is either reconstructible or its boundaries have survived to
modern times. Therefore, plots are the basic reference point in many kinds of urban studies. They
have always been essential in sociotopographic studies.4 With the development of historical GIS
(hGIS), analyses involving plots could have been used and shown potential to become more
approachable and elaborate. As shown by Keti Lelo, analyzing cadastral maps in conjunction
1
Tadeusz Manteuffel Institute of History, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland
Corresponding Author:
Katarzyna Słomska-Przech, Tadeusz Manteuffel Institute of History, Polish Academy of Sciences, Rynek Starego Miasta
29/31, 00-272 Warsaw, Poland.
Email: kslomska@ihpan.edu.pl
2 Journal of Urban History 00(0)
with additional census data and geostatic analyses enables drawing conclusions about many
socio-economic aspects.5 Plots could be used, for example, to reconstruct destroyed urban space,6
social relationships,7 real estate markets,8 or analyze urban development in relation to social
conditions.9 Sometimes projects result in the emergence of historical urban geoportals.10 Plots
are also used as a basic reference area in citizen participatory projects.11
Research on urban spaces is often conducted on the example of a specific town over a defined
period of time. Thus, the proposed concepts and their definitions may refer to a specific period in
history, or equally well to a specific urban space, or selected towns which were founded under
the same law or had a similar pace and manner of development. This makes it difficult to conduct
comparative studies. These studies could facilitate the understanding of many aspects of urban
phenomena by comparing towns and cities to other towns and cities from different parts of the
country, continent(s), or even the world, showing to researchers parallels and disparities in phases
of the history of many urban centers.12 Due to the fundamental importance of plots in the space
of a particular city, they play the main role in many comparative analyses. As Denecke stresses,
comparable specialist terminology is essential for comparative urban studies, since it conditions
mutual understanding between researchers.13 Denecke emphasized that such terminology should
be developed with reference to “national conditions and languages.” Anngret Simms14 describes
several barriers to comparative topographical analysis. Among them, she lists: language barriers
and different terminologies, universal comparability of data, and conceptual differences.
In research conducted with the use of databases, using domain ontology may prove to be the
method for solving these problems. One of the aims of the Historical Ontology of Urban Spaces
(HOUSe) project15 is to develop a domain ontology16 based on the Historic Towns Atlas (HTA)
series and tailored to the needs related to the digital turn.17 The HOUSe ontology (also referred
to as “UrbanOnto”) structure is based on the Topographic Object Database18 (hereinafter:
BDOT10k). Tomasz Panecki19 was the first to embark on completing the BDOT 10k structure
with objects appearing on old maps. This structure was then supplemented by the HOUSe project
with objects present in historical urban space in order to create UrbanOnto ontology. The devel-
oped UrbanOnto ontology was used to construct the HOUSe database model. The application of
ontology in relational databases is profitable for effective data retrieval, and sharing information
and knowledge.20 Ontologies have been successfully implemented in historical research.21 Work
on the historical ontology of urban spaces requires compilation and comparison of notions and
their definitions used in various studies across Europe. Research on each part or element of the
urban space involves exploration and comparison of written and cartographic sources. This step
is necessary for the developed domain ontology, so as to render it applicable to studies of various
towns and comparative research.
As plot is a commonly used term, we decided it should be among the first designations to be
developed in the HOUSe ontology. We approached this task with full awareness of both its
importance and difficulty. The need for this definition also arose from a problem encountered
during the vectorization of the base map used in the project, when we ran into difficulties in the
precise delineation of plots. We discuss these obstacles in the second section (Urban Plots in
GIS). Further on, in the third section (Urban Plots on HTA Plans), we discuss the matter in rela-
tion to the solutions employed in the HTA series. In the next section (Urban Plots—State-of-the-
Art Review), we summarize our conclusions on selected plot definitions appearing in literature
and put forward the definition developed under the HOUSe project.
Urban Plots in GIS: Warsaw Case Study

In order to test the HOUSe ontology developed under the project and the accompanying data-
base, it was necessary to select a test site. Warsaw was chosen as the case study and trial research
area. An HTA volume has not yet been developed for Warsaw, but is planned for this city. It had
Słomska-Przech and Słomski 3
Figure 1. Lindley’s Plan and today’s Warsaw (SAW sign. 72/1001/0/1.9/785; orthophotomap and 2021
border from National Geoportal, https://www.geoportal.gov.pl/).
Note: SAW = State Archive in Warsaw.
already been decided that Lindley’s Plan, at the scale of 1:2,500, was to serve as the base cadas-
tral map for the future HTA volume on Warsaw. We therefore decided to use this cartographic
material as the base map for the HOUSe project as well. As a result, our base map is a plan pre-
pared under the direction of William Heerlein Lindley for the purposes of constructing the water
supply and sewage system from the 1880s. As part of the preparatory work, a series of plans
with scales from 1:200 to 1:25,000 were developed at that time. This is the first fully mathemati-
cally precise material.22 For project purposes, we use the plan at the scale of 1:2,500 which
consists of 26 sheets (hereinafter referred to as “Lindley’s Plan” or “base map”). It presents the
exact grid of town streets and buildings. This material provides street names and numbers
assigned to individual plots. All sheets are available in digital form at the website of the State
Archive in Warsaw (SAW).23 The whole plan covers about 88 sq km, which corresponds to 17
percent of the current city surface area. For comparison, when the map was produced in the late
nineteenth century, most town buildings were still situated within the Lubomirski embankments
constructed in 1770 (about 20 sq km, Figure 1). Lindley’s Plan, that is, the cartographic material
used in the project, had been in constant use as an urban document in public offices and in sur-
veying. Its contents have been updated in magenta ink even 50 years after the development of
the plan.24
Lindley’s Plan presents the division of Warsaw into plots, that is, the land framework stem-
ming from urban fragmentation processes which Old Warsaw witnessed since the turn of thir-
teenth and fourteenth century, and which prevailed until the end of the eighteenth century in the
suburban areas of Old and New Warsaw. As the suburban areas of both Warsaw’s experienced
demographic growth, the need arose to carve individual plots out of previously undivided land.
The eighteenth century in particular ushered in an intense division of suburban space. Depending
Figure 2. Examples of dead-end alleys—(right) not included, and (left) included in the structure of
urban plots (Lindley’s Plan, SAW sign. 72/1001/0/1.9/785, sheets 2 (right), 15, 16 (left)).
on the landowner, plot delimitation was either well-thought-out or spontaneous. The former case
is well illustrated by Bielino, a private district carefully demarcated within the south-western
part of the suburbs of the royal town of Old Warsaw. Another example of precisely outlined plot
borders can be found at the northern tip of the New Warsaw suburbs, that is, the land held by the
Holy Spirit Hospital. Otherwise land subdivisions emerged spontaneously, in a manner depen-
dent on the financial capacity of the buyer or topographic conditions.25 The numbers assigned to
individual parcels date to 1784. Of course, the plot division depicted as of that year continued to
evolve, with land units being merged and subdivided, and new parcels appearing in areas not
subjected to parcellation before 1784.
In the project, tackling plots was the first step taken toward map vectorization since this land
unit constitutes one of the three main elements of any town plan, and forms the basis for further
analysis. M.R.G. Conzen names three distinct complexes of the town plan: streets, plots, and
buildings.26 Based on Conzen’s three-layer composition, the next subsection will discuss the plot
and its place in database structure, its hierarchy, and its relations to other elements. Below we
discuss the problems that arose in the vectorization process. The main focus was on cases where
the cartographic source did not enable determining the exact plot boundary, that is, where it was
not feasible to identify relations between plots and streets, as well as between plots and buildings,
plot numbers, symbolization of borders, and the life of a plan.
Relations between Plots and Streets

M.R.G. Conzen stated that streets and plots were separate systems27. When looking at the real,
physical urban space and its model (town plan) alike, however, it proves challenging to relate
Cozen’s theory to practice, and to separate or distinguish space for plot and street layers.
Figure 3. Urban plot with park traversed by alleys (subcategory of road) (Lindley’s Plan, SAW sign.
72/1001/0/1.9/785, sheet 11).
Figure 4. Example of urban plot intersected by roads as a result of transport network expansion (base
map: Lindley’s Plan, SAW sign. 72/1001/0/1.9/785, sheet 11).
Figures 2 to 4 present cases of interweaving layers—of plots and streets—encountered during

the vectorization process. Figure 2 depicts examples of dead-end streets (cul-de-sac) placed on
the map, including both those designating plot parts and those drawn as separate units. One may
conclude that in some cases blind alleys formed part of a plot, yet in others they functioned in
separation from plots, as individual elements of urban space. An example of the latter case is a
cul-de-sac leading to more than one property. The following examples illustrate even more
intense overlapping of the transportation network and plots. Let us start with park alleys, which
constitute a subcategory of roads (Figure 3). At the same time, however, park alleys are substan-
tial elements of plots with publicly accessible green space.28 To give an even more clear-cut
case, let us take the following example: as the transport network expanded, roads started passing
through a plot of land without affecting its borders or internal division (Figure 4). The Lindley’s
Plan depicts two plots bearing the same number (2317). At a more detailed scale (plan from
Lindley’s series in a scale of 1:250), however, it becomes visible that the in-between plot num-
bers (2314 and 2315) have been crossed out. As a result, the longer side of plot 2317 is approxi-
mately 800 m and is intersected by two streets.
All above objects are separate street categories, and at the same time constitute important plot
elements. Therefore, when applying Conzen’s triad, it is necessary to assign them to the correct
layer. One solution is to make a strict distinction between objects forming part of the street sys-
tem and objects which are plot elements. Another approach would be to state that these objects
are simultaneously part of the street system and the street-blocks. Such an approach, though,
would not yield a town structure—and consequently neither a database structure nor town plan
situation—fully consistent with Conzen’s assumptions. HOUSe ontology has a hierarchical
structure, with plots and streets constituting different categories. Moreover, it is not possible to
assign one object to two ontological types (which belong to two different categories) at the same
time. To address this, these layers should not be absolutely separated, but should be allowed to
interweave.
Building without a Plot

Borders are the basic feature of an urban plot. Still, maps do not show plots for all marked build-
ings. This triggers the question of whether a parcel of land was delimited for such a “plotless”
building at all. If yes, it calls for determining the course of plot boundary, and the possible source
of relevant data.
Let us illustrate this issue with an example from Lindley’s Plan, that is, St. Alexander’s Church
in the Three Crosses Square (Figure 5). The church building was constructed in the years 1818–
1825. Changes were introduced between 1886 and 1895, and Lindley’s Plan depicts the resulting
altered form. After World War II, the church was rebuilt to its early nineteenth-century
appearance.
Lindley’s Plan, elaborated at a scale of 1:2,500, does not provide the plot number or depict the
border of the church plot. The more accurate 1:250 plan from Lindley’s series also fails to give
the plot number. For us, it was a prerequisite to identify the plot number and border, since our
intention was to combine the data generated as part of the project with information from, for
example, registers. The plot number—1250—can be found on the Corps of Military Engineers
map from 1822. This map, however, does not depict the plot boundaries (the church is sur-
rounded by a symbol other than that used for borders in this map). In order to determine the
missing boundaries, we compared old maps with modern databases where contemporary plot
borders run along the walls of the building marked on Lindley’s Plan (blue line, Figure 5C). For
the purpose of this project, we assumed that this was the plot boundary at that time, and was not
visible on the source map due to this overlapping.
Figure 5. St. Alexander’s Church building: A. 1822 plan of Corps of Military Engineers29 (1:4,800,
sheet 5); B. Lindley’s Plan (1:2,500, SAW sign. 72/1001/0/1.9/785, sheet 16); C. Modern databases30 with
Lindley’s Plan in the background.
Single Building in Several Plots

Another problem arose when we identified a single building situated in more than one plot of
land. Were this relation to be included in the database, it would be necessary to design a “one to
many” connection. The Jabłonowski Palace is an example of a Warsaw building which occupies
multiple plots. In the early nineteenth century, the Jabłonowski Palace was adjusted to serve as
the town hall. To this end, the building was expanded to better fulfill its new function. The
1:2,500 Lindley’s Plan shows that this building was located on four plots (Figure 6). This is
hardly unusual, as the same cartographic source offers similar depictions of the Holy Spirit
Figure 6. The Jabłonowski Palace was situated on four urban plots (SAW sign. 72/1001/0/1.9/785,
sheet 11).
Hospital (plot no. 710 and 751) and at least other six buildings, most likely tenement houses. All
the more, this issue deserves to be recognized and taken into account in the analyses of historical
urban space.
Plot Numbers
For the purpose of differentiating between plots, it is often useful to correlate plot numbers with
property owners. The cartographic source, however, was not uniform for the analyzed city. In
Figure 7, we present an example of an area where the plan depicts more than one numerical cat-
egory. Cadastral numbering probably consists of the high numbers visible on the map (e.g., no.
932). The repetitive, low numbers are the so-called police numbers, which were used to mark
buildings along streets. Overlapping numeration is represented by the double numbering of the
corner plot in the eastern part of the presented area. The repeatability of low values, such as 8 or
7, also stands proof to this assumption.
Problems also arise when the same plot of land is labeled twice (with the same number). Such
plot numbering was often the result of dividing an urban plot into two smaller parts, after which
the same numbers appeared next to each other on maps (Figure 4). Two numbers might be
assigned to the same plot also when working with an old plan, as this effect might be produced
by georeferencing and combining two sheets on which a given property is located (Figure 8). The
border is subtly marked, however, in the northern part of plot no. 2943/3 in Figure 8. This border
mark prompts a reflection on internal plot divisions and the types of line symbols presented in the
cartographic source, which brings us to the matter of plot borders.
Figure 7. Example of area with inconsistent plot numeration annotations (SAW sign.
72/1001/0/1.9/785, sheet 8).
Plot Borders
Old maps and town plans often fail to provide a legend, which necessitates a reconstruction of
map symbolization. Plans developed over long periods by multiple authors might exhibit incon-
sistent use of symbols. Possible post-publication updates should also be taken into account.
Plan vectorization gave rise to difficulties not foreseen at the outset of the project, namely
mapping the partitions within plots (e.g., Figure 8). At the beginning, it was assumed that the
problem lay in the presence of fences reflecting plot structure and functional divisions. However,
plan authors used a similar sign to mark boundaries on later plan sheets (Figure 9).
Lindley’s Plan shows plots marked only with numbers, and without a clearly demarcated bor-
der (e.g., Figure 4, plot no. 2317). One reason for this may be the process of dividing and merg-
ing, and the delimitation of new plots. At times, even the use of auxiliary cartographic sources
does not enable border reconstruction, especially for periods of intense urban development.
Life of a Plan
When working with historical cartographic sources, one must not ignore the possibility that a
given town plan had been updated in the past. After determining the history of a given source,
one ought to consider which version should be used for research purposes, that is, the original or
the updated plan. An important advantage of such a source is the possibility of using it to trace
changes in the urban tissue. For example, thanks to the availability of plans in various scales from
the series from which Lindley’s Plan comes, it is possible to recreate the process of division into
parcels. Figure 10 presents this type of situation near Frédéric Chopin Street. At the top of the
figure on the plan at the scale of 1:2,500 one can observe only plot numbers without marked
Figure 8. Example of urban plot situated at the intersection of two plan sheets (SAW sign.
72/1001/0/1.9/785, sheets 16, 17, 20, 21).
Figure 9. Example of sheet with different symbols for boundaries (SAW sign. 72/1001/0/1.9/785,
sheet 13).
Figure 10. Process of division into parcels near Frédéric Chopin Street (SAW sign. 72/1001/0/1.9/785,
sheet 20; Map of Warsaw—Office of Surveying and Cadastre, http://mapa.um.warszawa.pl/en/index.
html).
borders, and at the bottom of the plan at the scale of 1:250 boundary symbols are visible. It may
also happen that adjacent sheets developed at a different time do not represent a consistent situa-
tion. In Lindley’s Plan, this was the case of the buildings to the northeast of Zgoda Street on
sheets 15 and 16 (Figure 11).
However, one should also establish whether the given cartographic source presents future
plans or whether the actual structure of the town has been accurately reflected (Figure 12).
Figure 11. Inconsistent situation on adjacent sheets of Lindley’s Plan Street (SAW sign.
72/1001/0/1.9/785, sheets 15 and 16).
Sometimes, it can also be difficult to distinguish which part of the plan was updated and which
fragments have survived in their original form.
Vectorization of Urban Plots—Summary

To sum up, one has to bear many aspects in mind while vectorizing urban plots, namely:
•• relation between plan elements

○ plots and streets
○ plots and buildings
•• plot merging and subdivision
•• plot numbers
○ various types of classification on one plan
○ repeated numbers
•• impact of different functions served by individual plot parts on their presentation/
visualization
•• vague or missing symbolization of borders
•• different symbolization of borders
•• life of a town plan, updates
Figure 12. Example of sheet with updates marked in magenta (SAW sign. 72/1001/0/1.9/785, sheet 16).
Urban Plots on HTA Plans

In order to compare the obtained results of Lindley’s Plan vectorization, we intended to confront
them with selected volumes of the Historic Towns Atlas. We also thought that such an analysis
could, in some way, contribute to the drafting of a definition for HOUSe ontology. A lot has been
written about the HTA series, let us only stress some basic and important information about it. At
the beginning of 2022, over 580 atlases have been produced in 19 countries.31 One of the main
objectives in establishing the HTA was to enable comparative studies of European towns, and the
prerequisite for the overall scheme was the use of maps with common scales and date ranges. The
main map in the comparative endeavor is a redraw of the oldest surviving cadastral map for the
nineteenth century at the scale of 1:2,500, which is the main subject of this section. It should be
considered that using the scale of 1:2,500 limits possibilities of even more detailed depictions of
some small elements of urban space. This oldest cadastral plan was to reflect the undisturbed
shape of the town prior to rapid changes in urban tissue triggered by nineteenth-century industri-
alization.32 It has been indicated in literature, however, that pre-industrial urban space also under-
went changes. Moreover, even the oldest prevailing cadastre reflects only a limited stage of town
life33—and not necessarily that which occurred in the early nineteenth century as Heinz Stoob
proposed34—which resulted from both the specific conditions of the region where the town was
located and the choices made by authors of particular volumes. What is more, the comparison-
related issues might also arise from the great diversity of HTA volumes. These discrepancies
arose from the fact that due to many difficulties, mainly in the cartographic and written source
materials, national atlases slightly differ from the basic principles of the series.35 Apart from the
above noted and described problems arising upon the launch of a comparative study using HTA
volumes drafted over the last 50 years in different countries,36 let us mention another potential
addition to this list: how can one compare towns with surviving cadastral plans from the first
decades of the nineteenth century with those whose oldest useful cadastral maps reflect urban
space as at the late nineteenth century or even the first decades of the twentieth century?
As this specific model is used in the HTA series, we must refer to this standard. It is worth
reflecting on how atlases of the HTA series have presented plots, in relation to both small and big
towns. This twofold approach arises from the obvious fact that the space of small towns differed
from that of large towns, in terms of both foundation model, type, and density of housing devel-
opment, and the qualitative elements of urban space.37 These differences influenced the degree of
plot development (discussed further on) and durability of land parcellation. While plots in town
centers quite frequently survived even in their medieval shape (mainly thanks to the presence of
brick housing), those further away from the center, on the outskirts of the town, did not display
such permanence.38 The question remains, of course, to what extent this thesis can be supported
for small towns whose buildings were mainly made of wood—as it was building structures of
brick and stone that were favorable to the petrification of parcel size.39 Small towns differed from
large towns in terms of urban framework. Differences were determined by the scale of urban
planning assumptions, to name one reason. Again, one may generally state that the layout of a
small town most often comprised a town square (which was sometimes a main street wider than
other streets40), main streets with denser housing development radiating from that square, which
also served as exit roads and auxiliary tracts. In general, urban centers of this size were not sur-
rounded by town walls. They were rather enclosed by structures resembling dykes or high
(wooden) fences. The area within these structures was mainly undeveloped, occupied by gardens
or even small thickets of fruit trees. While the parochial church served as an important landmark
for any small town, smaller urban settlements did not necessarily have a town hall. Residential
housing was predominantly low and wooden, with nearby outbuildings typical of rural land-
scapes, such as sheds and barns.41 Housing was much denser in larger towns, and larger green
areas were situated rather in the suburbs. The character of urban space could have had influence
on how it was evaluated and presented in maps, and thus it continues to impact contemporary
analyses and our perception of historic urban space.
As the character of urban space was greatly divergent depending on town size, we cannot
make do without a reflection on how such varied space should be described in terms of defini-
tions, databases, and cartography. We reviewed mainly Irish, Austrian, and Polish HTA volumes,
and supplemented our observations with individual volumes of the German, Hungarian, and
Romanian series. Our selection was guided mainly by volume availability. Irish and Austrian
volumes were most easily accessible, as they have been published online in a more or less limited
form. Similarly, most Polish volumes have been uploaded online, yet the scale of their availabil-
ity is varied.42
All in all, whether we worked with a base map of Dublin in Ireland (Figure 13) or Marchegg
in Austria (Figure 14), similar visualization seemed to be at work: borders of parcels and build-
ings, watercourses, and green areas are all marked with a line of the same width and color. In
cases where plot distribution is relatively regular, it can intuitively be determined that the area
behind a building may have formed part of a given plot, along with the object at the front.
However, it was not always possible to identify precisely which element of urban space
belonged to a given parcel. For the high-density urban space of Dublin, where parcels located in
the central part of the town were sometimes small in size, this issue concerns mainly the affilia-
tion of courtyards, and other utility and residential buildings. It is mainly because of characteris-
tics of cartographic source material used in Irish Historic Towns Atlas to prepare map at the scale
1:2,500—the Ordnance Survey, which is different from the cadastral town plans in that they do
not include clearly defined, numbered plots. The plan of the Austrian town of Marchegg gives us
Figure 13. Part of cadastral base map of Dublin from 1846-1847.

Source: Map 2 in Howard B. Clarke, Dublin. Part I, to 1610 (Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, 2002).
a slightly clearer picture, as the town had a smaller population and less dense housing.
Nevertheless, even Marchegg offers examples of structures and spatial elements situated within
town walls which escape unproblematic classification as parts of specific plots, just like the car-
tographic source for Warsaw discussed in the “Urban Plots in GIS” section. Owing to the intui-
tive perception of urban space (caused by familiarity with that space) or the Gestalt principle of
perception,43 it would be difficult to suggest, given the type of cartographic visualization chosen
by the authors, that map users might assume that buildings, courtyards, and green areas constitute
independent objects falling within urban space. Yet a detailed analysis of the plans might create
that very—perhaps misleading—impression. The way of presentation validates the method of
interpretation, as it does not provide a hierarchy of symbols which would differentiate between
individual object categories (plot, building, garden). The symbol of a straight line, let alone an
explanation of its meaning, is in fact absent from the legend to the Marchegg plan.44 The Dublin
plan legend indicates that lines define borders, but fails to specify what objects are enclosed by
this symbol. As a result, it seems that these borders may be interpreted as the land-use area of the
given spaces and objects, not plot borders. The legend to the redrawing of the Siret cadastre from
1855 describes lines as borders of parcels, gardens, and buildings.45 In essence, we are dealing
with a situation resembling that of Marchegg and Dublin: it is not entirely clear where the par-
cel—but not the utility—border runs, and what is situated within a single parcel. We describe a
similar issue in the “Plot Borders” section, in reference to the Warsaw case study of the HOUSe
Figure 14. Part of cadastral base map of Marchegg from 1821-1822.

Source: Franziszeischer Kataster mit Legende, in Ferdinand Opll, ed. Marchegg (Wien: Franz Deuticke
Verlagsgesellschaft m.b.H., 1985).
project. Although in that specific case the origin of the problem was different (the plan used a few
different symbols for borders), plan users are faced with the very same difficulty. Similar obser-
vations hold true for other volumes of the series which we studied, that is, Ireland (e.g., Trim46
and Fethard47), Austria (e.g., Feldkirch48, Kufstein49), and others alike.
The authors of the German Deutscher Historischer Städteatlas series adopted a different
approach to outlining plots of land. One may note that the Braunschweig volume marks parcel
borders with thicker contours, and internal parcel subdivisions with thinner lines (Figure 15). At
the same time, the same color is used for both line types. This choice suggests a coherent system
of symbols.
This subdivision can easily be seen in the plots forming the northern frontage of Kayserstrasse
and some plots situated in the northern part of the eastern frontage of Reichenstrasse. The legend
to the map also provides information about this division (Figure 16). Specific (blue and pink)
numbers are indicated for each plot, to reflect the numbers assigned to the plots in the period of
drafting the plan which formed the basis for the redrawing. These plots form a single unit with
the buildings situated in the plots (marked in pink), courtyards, and other undeveloped space
used for different purposes (marked in white), and space generally understood as green areas
(marked in green). In order to underline this fact, the number of the plot was sometimes marked
multiple times to indicate the affiliation of several objects to one plot.
We consider, for example, the redrawn cadastral map of Świdnica in Silesia (Figure 17) to be
an attempt at introducing a similar solution. The redrawn 1895 cadastral map allocates numbers
to buildings in all depicted streets. Such a solution, though interesting, did not enable resolving
certain problems which arose when vectorizing Lindley’s Plan. Using a line of equal width blurs
information about boundaries and parcel range. This solution renders it unclear whether the
prison building, visible to the east of the town market square, occupied two separate parcels, or
Figure 15. Braunschweig parcels based on 1750/66 plan. Tafel 1.2 in Wolfgang Meibeyer, Henning
Steinführer, Daniel Stracke. Braunschweig. Deutscher Historischer Städteatlas, 4 (Münster: Ardey-Verlag,
2014); online: accessed October 28, 2021, http://www.staedtegeschichte.de/Stadtkarten/braunschweig/
stadtgrundriss.html.
Figure 16. Legend to 1750/66 Braunschweig plan with clear distinction between parcel borders and
borders of utility areas within those parcels.
maybe the line running more or less along the center of the building was an internal border
reflecting the subdivision of a single parcel.
Redrawn cadastral maps are not the only elements of the HTA series which offer cartographic
visualizations of plots. Their presence, however, depends on the source material available for
use. For instance, the atlas of the Hungarian town of Sátoraljaújhely provides not only reproduc-
tions of cartographic material, but also a source dating to the late eighteenth century which
depicts parcels held by the local Calvinist Church.50 In cases where a mapped town had been
subjected to thorough archeological studies, the sheets illustrating the analyzed issue also pro-
vide a reconstruction of the medieval division of parcels.51 The legend to the maps depicting the
Figure 17. Cadastral base map of Świdnica (Poland) from 1895.

Source: Map 1 in Rafał Eysymontt, and Mateusz Goliński, eds. Świdnica. Atlas Historyczny Miast Polskich, IV–2 (Wrocław:
Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 2008).
spatial development of Stary Sącz in Poland clearly indicates the line used to mark parcel bor-
ders; the parcels themselves have been categorized by purpose of space usage.52 This visualiza-
tion, however, is heavily generalized. It corresponds to the assumption underlined in the
commentary to the Stary Sącz volume that the depth of urban plots might point to their residential
and garden character.53 Thus, this map fails to present a building and border outline which would
meet the standards of a cartographic source elaborated with high precision. Commentary parts of
volumes often shed light on how the plots were used. The commentary to the topography of
Kilkenny in Ireland mentions gardens at the back of parcels.54 In his description of residential
parcels in Sátoraljaújhely,55 István Tringli wrote that an urban parcel consisted of a building sur-
rounded by a courtyard and a garden. Similar, relatively brief information on diverse parcel sur-
face use appear in the commentaries on Niemcza and Trzebnica in Silesia.56
An analysis of the HTA plans makes clear that the difficulties in determining the range of
objects in a town plan (e.g., the range of plots) concern both primary sources (Lindley’s Plan at
the scale of 1:2,500) and secondary sources (HTA plans). Problems arise from insufficient
explanations in plan legends, and failure to hierarchize or sufficiently differentiate between
symbols. Therefore, the following issues call for a reflection. First, it ought to be established
how information from written and cartographic sources should be combined with that of the
future database. Second, it is necessary to devise an appropriate cartographic representation for
uncertain, inaccurate and often general information which will reflect this aspect of urban
space—a frequent issue in small and average European towns—to the greatest extent possible.
Urban Plot—State-of-the-Art Review

When drafting the definition of Polish term działka (plot), we reviewed other attempts at provid-
ing a precise definition for this term described in literature. We omitted the issue of analyzing
primary sources dating to the Middle Ages and the early modern period. It follows from similar
research that analyzing Latin and vernacular terminology requires a separate study questionnaire
and a slightly different methodology.57 Nevertheless, we incidentally availed ourselves of such

works.58 We sought two types of information: (1) definitions of the Polish term działka (plot); (2)
definitions of terms used to denote plot in other languages. Our analysis covered mainly texts on
researching historic urban space, along with texts on studies in medieval and post-medieval
urban archeology. These were mainly papers written in English, German, Polish, and Czech. We
focused primarily on works about urban space. As a result, we did not take into account defini-
tions connected with general demarcation of space or use of farming areas.59
Various Definitions from Literature

The majority of such works do not contain a definition of plot. In most cases, definitions are
absent in works where an analysis of urban morphological structure is not a prerequisite. Such is
the case of the book about Alnwick in Northumberland by M.R.G. Conzen. Significantly, this
author—a classic figure of morphological studies—uses two terms for plot. In one definition, he
states, “Each parcel is essentially a unit of land use; it is physically defined by boundaries on or
above ground and may be called a plot, whatever its size.”60 So, a parcel could be called a plot.
Further on, however, Conzen uses burgage to refer to plot (a reference to an early-modern-period
source term) and provides the following definition for this word: “the urban plot held by a bur-
gess. It contained his house, yard and ‘garth,’ and was charged with a fixed rent as a contribution
to the communal borough tax or firma burgi of the town.”61 Depending on the aspect in focus,
M.R.G. Conzen used two different terms to denote plot. The first definition stresses the physical
aspects of a plot, namely its outlined borders and the used space enclosed within them. The sec-
ond definition stresses the ownership-related aspects of a burgage, meaning the legal rights and
tax duties of the owner (burgess) of a plot. When combined, these two definitions form the inter-
pretation given by Terry Slater. Slater defined plot, denoted with the term burgage (probably in
line with the period of Slater’s academic interest), as the primary cell of urban space character-
ized by its lengthiness and narrowness, situated along a road, and whose outer borders remained
permanent once delimited, and whose ownership gave the burgess full burgher rights.62 Vanessa
Harding presented a similar definition of the burgage plot, that is, the counterpart of plot: “[b]
urgage plots were, typically, long, narrow properties laid out at right angles to urban streets, with
a house at the street and yards or gardens behind.”63 This definition refers to the physical aspects
of a plot and adds a new trait to its description. Harding states that part of a plot was occupied by
a house, while the remaining space was used as a courtyard or garden. Nonetheless, the term
used—burgage—implies the right to use, buy, sell, or bequeath the property in return for rent
(so-called burgage tenure), arising from the fact that the owner of a burgage was subject to town
law.64
An extensive definition of plot is to be found in an article by Czech archeologist Rudolf
Procházka. The definition reads,
a plot can be understood as a measured and delimited section of space usually containing one
residential building and its extensions/supplements. It is owned and inherited (rented), with the
charge paid to the land owner [. . .]. Together with the residential house, it represents the basic spatial
unit of the urban floor plan and, of course, also the cornerstone property structures with a significant
impact on the social status of the proprietor (holder)—only the (quasi) owner could be full burgher.65
In this definition, Procházka underlines the physical spatiality of a demarcated unit of urban
space and points to two features: delimiting that section of urban surface and the structures pres-
ent in that unit. Procházka’s definition emphasizes that the plot forms the basic unit of urban
space. It also indicates that plot ownership was of importance: only the owner of an urban plot
could be a burgher.
One Polish article to offer a definition of plot/parcel is that by archeologist Cezary Buśko: “A
bourgeois parcel is a fragment of space separated by borders from the urban organism, together
with the buildings functioning within it, constituting an independent economic complex.”66 This
definition adds a new dimension to the analyzed term. Next to the attributes discussed above,
such as demarcated borders and buildings used for specific purposes, plot has now been described
as an economic unit. Roman Czaja introduced the term in a very succinct manner, by stating that
a plot is the smallest unit of the urban spatial arrangement.67
For the purpose of our study, we sought the assistance of two Polish historians-medievalists
and asked them to define the term plot. Mateusz Goliński decided to use a dictionary definition,
that is, “a plot of land, separated from a larger area, intended for buildings,”68 and supplemented
it with three elements69 (hereinafter: Goliński 2020). First of all, he highlighted the issue of the
plot border. Second, he pointed to the matter of taxes. Finally, he indicated that from the eigh-
teenth century onward, the urban plot has been equivalent to a cadastral town plot. The second
researcher was Urszula Sowina, who—in reference to her work on medieval urban plots in writ-
ten sources70—defined plot as “a limited surface with strictly defined boundaries—for tax and
ownership purposes”71 (hereinafter: Sowina 2020). Paweł Cembrzyński and Maciej Radomski
provide a definition related to those observations. Cembrzyński and Radomski characterize the
plot as “the basic unit of both a town’s spatial structure and its governing and taxation systems.”72
Art historian Rafał Eysymontt sees parcel as the “basic element of a medieval town” and points
to its inherent feature of being “connected [with parcel—K.S.-P., M.S.] right to having a house
and its free inheritance, which gives an urban community spirit, that makes a bourgeois aware-
ness’ core.” What is more, the parcel was a major element of parcellation, important in forging
the geometrical composition of a town.73 In addition to identifying the plot as a basic element of
urban space, which was a standard component of such definitions at that time, Eysymontt under-
lines the implication of owning a plot for the mentality of town residents: the emergence of an
urban resident community.
Considerable terminological differentiation can be noted in works published in German.
Contexts where a Polish author would use działka abound with terms such as die Parzelle, das
Grundstück,74 das Bürgergrundstück, das Hausplatz, and die Hofstelle.75 Hubert Drüppel, author
of the entry under the headword “Grundstücke” in the “Lexicon des Mittelalters,” indicated two
features: the fact that a plot was demarcated to form a unit of land surface, and that individual plot
parts made up a real property as defined in property law.76 What is interesting, the terms used
differ depending on which aspect of physical plot features a given definition emphasizes. Fred
Kaspar differentiated between die Parzelle and die Hausstätte. He noted that die Parzelle refers
mainly to a delimited section of surface area,77 while die Hausstätte denotes the use of that space,
primarily by implying that a residential building is constructed within die Parzelle or that its
courtyard or garden are in use.78 It seems that Karsten Igel used the terms das Grundstück and die
Hausstätte interchangeably, similarly to Kaspar.79 Some Polish works on urban design and spa-
tial planning attach the meaning of a place designated for development to plot.80
Hans Strahm, who discussed die Area in towns, used mainly das Grundstück as a synonym for
the term discussed. Strahm equated die Area with plot. All in all, this author presented two pos-
sible understandings of the term, that is, a narrower and a broader meaning, which we will com-
bine here for the purpose of comparative analyses. Strahm defined die Area as a demarcated and
separate segment of land (broader sense), a delimited site designated for development (narrower
sense). Strahm identified such a land segment with land property held by burghers.81
However, it generally appears that most of the above terms denoting plot are used synony-
mously. In his article on the possibilities for using GIS systems in spatial analyses of medieval
towns, Tim Bisschops based his discussion of this issue on the example of Antwerp and inter-
changeably used two terms for plot: plot (used 24 times in the article) and parcel (21).82 Such
terms as działka and parcela are used synonymously also in Polish sociotopographic works.83
Discussion
The elements of the above definitions can be grouped into several categories. In Table 1, we
indicate whether a given element is present in the definition formulated by a specific author.
The analysis of existing definitions and explanations forms the grounds for several conclu-
sions. Precise measurement of plot acreage and demarcation of its borders are most often empha-
sized. As concerns the quantitative aspect of the term, that is, plot being a delimited fragment of
space, English works seem to use plot most often.84 Slater’s emphasis on the permanence of
outlined parcel borders does not come across as significant in terms of drafting a general defini-
tion of plot. As Keith Lilley noted, the permanence of medieval (and even earlier) parcellations
was and is dependent on the size and significance of a given town, and this holds true for both the
Middle Ages and contemporary times. Lilley also underlined that even if it is possible to prove
the permanence of borders in one town part, such findings cannot be applied to all other regions,
let alone all other towns.85
Most above-mentioned definitions underlined that urban plots were held by burghers. This
statement is true, yet let us bear in mind that in many towns parcels were bought out by nobility,
and were granted to or acquired by Catholic Church institutions. As not only the physical, land-
related aspects of plots, but also ownership-related issues (plots forming part of their owner’s
property) had to be expressed, authors turned to terms other than plot: English: burgage, Polish:
realność,86 and it seems the German die Hausstätte can also be assigned to this category. It
appears that these terms are too narrow for the purpose of our considerations, as they define plot
as a unit connected with property, buildings, and land use. One ought to bear in mind that attach-
ing plot ownership with burgher rights was typical rather of the pre-industrial period and that this
meaning continued to diminish over time, until it was completely lost in the nineteenth and twen-
tieth centuries.
Definitions frequently indicated that plots were designated for development. This could not be
more true: buildings were most often constructed in specific plots of land. Development scale
varied, however, depending on plot location within a town, its size, the owner’s profession, and,
finally, the decision taken by the plot user.87 Not all plots were developed, and the degree of their
development changed over time.88 The same plot could be occupied by different structures in
different historical periods. It seems that in most cases plots were developed gradually, parallel
to a town’s demographic growth. M.R.G. Conzen coined the term burgage cycle for this
process.89 And so, the same developed plot of the late nineteenth century may have housed fewer
or no buildings in the sixteenth century.
Development scale and type differed also because plots served different purposes. Depending
on the degree of land development, town size, and urban growth, plots had a single dominant
function or were an aggregate of several interdependent roles. Swedish towns, which were very
small as compared with urban settlements of the European continent, are one example here.
These multifunctional plots (Swedish: stadstgård) accommodated not only residential buildings
but also other outbuildings (stables, barns), craft workshops, and gardens providing stadstgård
residents with sustenance.90 This observation can be applied to small towns of other European
regions with relatively high certainty. M.R.G. Conzen wrote of the tadpole structure of plot,
where residential houses and storage facilities occupied the front of a plot, while the rear accom-
modated a garden with additional structures.91 The outcomes of archeological research conducted
in smaller towns of medieval Silesia prompted Buśko to design a model for internal plot division.
In this model, Buśko discerned five functional zones: a residential area, an economic area, a back
buildings area, a sanitation area, and a garden area.92 Although it seems that the dominant func-
tion of plots was residential, not every plot was inhabited. Some plots were vacated for temporary
intervals of non-residence, yet some were designated solely for crafts and utility structures (e.g.,
malt houses or granaries93) or gardens.
22
Table 1. Definitions of the Term “Plot” by Various Authors.
Author (in alphabetical Basic part of Property Buildings or Economic Taxation Government Formation of
order) (year) urban space Boundaries of burgher other land use functions purposes purposes urban mentality
Buśko (1995) + + +
Cembrzyński and + + +
Radomski (2020)
Conzen (1960) + +
Czaja (1992) +
Drüppel (1989) + +
Eysymontt (2009) + + + +
Goliński (2020) + + +
Harding (2002) + + +
Procházka (2007) + + + +
Slater (1981) + + +
Sowina (2020) + + +
Strahm (1945) + + +
Total 6 9 7 6 1 3 1 1
How to Define the Term “Urban Plot (działka)”—Proposed HOUSe Ontology

Definition
One of the assumptions adopted during the development of the UrbanOnto ontology was that the
natural language definition should resemble the so-called classic definitions. We therefore
referred to the Aristotelian pattern of a classic definition.94 In line with the “per genus et differ-
entiam,” the classic definiens consists of two parts: the closest genus, and the difference which
gives its species.
As indicated above, definitions of the term plot appearing in literature often refer to the char-
acteristics of the period studied by the definition authors. Emphasis was sometimes placed on
aspects important to the field researched by a given author. The definition proposed in this article
is intended for broad-based—in terms of both time span and spatial range—comparative analy-
ses. It was therefore crucial to ensure that this definition was applicable under various
circumstances.
We propose the following definition of the term plot: “the basic unit of urban space organiza-
tion delimited by borders, on which a building can be built, assigned to an owner.” We consider
three aspects—demarcation, building, and ownership—to constitute the key elements of the most
general definition of the term plot. Some of the definitions discussed above also contain refer-
ences to the functional aspects of a plot. However, plots of land can be used for purposes so
varied that we decided not to take them into consideration.
Summary
Town plots, much like the basic cells of any living organism, undergo various processes. This
renders plots volatile and prevents them from remaining largely unchanged throughout the course
of a town’s existence. Delineating borders, so basic a task for the creation of a spatial database
and developing the concept of a plot, sometimes proves a tedious exercise, which potentially
entails comparing many cartographic and written sources. Another question arises: if we perceive
the individual elements of a town as pieces of a puzzle which all fit together, then should subse-
quent groups be regarded as completely separate categories, or should we think of them as
strongly related and interweaving layers?
Meticulous problems with the vectorization of old plans may lead to problems with historical
plan interpretation. Interpretation problems might also be triggered by cartographic source con-
tent and its surviving condition, as well as the availability of supplementary materials (e.g.,
instructions followed during plan elaboration). Decisions concerning how a plan ought to be
handled are also prone to impact elaboration outcomes, for example, authors may decide to either
edit a source in a form that most closely corresponds to the original, or perform its interpretation
and publish the resulting critical edition.
Defining the meaning of the term plot, along with identifying plot components and determin-
ing plot boundaries, may prove problematic at the stages of both preparing and interpreting a
historical map. Such difficulties impact plan accuracy, as well as the precision of accompanying
research. Failure to determine exact plot boundaries hinders, for example, analyses of quantita-
tive indicators relating to plot surface area, such as population density or plot unit price. This is
also important in relation to analyzing spatial ownership aspects, such as the acreage belonging
to a specific person or even the division of land between owners.
It would seem that with such a simple type of object, a plot of land, which is the basic element
of urban space, it is not necessary to develop a definition, and that this term may seem so obvious
that all researchers would define it unequivocally. However, there are differences in the defini-
tions of plot formulated by different authors, and these discrepancies may impact the perception
of this term by text recipients. Adopting a domain ontology of historical urban space for
comparative research would establish an unambiguous reference framework for the terms used
by the authors, and thus help conduct comparative—both spatial and temporal—research on a
wider scale.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article: This article has been supported by the Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange
under Grant No. PPI/APM/2019/1/00053/U/00001.
ORCID iD
Katarzyna Słomska-Przech https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3669-0018
Notes
1. Michael R. G. Conzen, Alnwick, Northumberland: A Study in Town-Plan Analysis (London: George
Philip, 1960), 5.
2. Michael P. Conzen, “Retrieving the Pre-Industrial Built Environments of Europe: The Historic Towns
Atlas Programme and Comparative Morphological Study,” Urban Morphology 12, no. 2 (2008):
143-56.
3. Dietrich Denecke, “Comparative Approaches in the Historico-Topographical Analysis of Towns and
Cities,” in Lords and towns in medieval Europe: The European Historic Towns Atlas project, ed.
Howard B. Clarke and Anngret Simms (London: Taylor & Francis, 2015), 33-61.
4. Rolf Hammel, “Hauseigentum im spätmittelalterlichen Lübeck. Methoden zur sozial- und wirtschafts-
geschichtlichen Auswertung der Lübecker Oberstadtbuchregesten” [House ownership in Late Medieval
Lübeck. Methods for the social- and economic-historical evaluation of Oberstadt book registers],
Lübecker Schriften zur Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte 10 (1987): 85-300 (In German); Roman
Czaja, Socjotopografia miasta Elbląga w średniowieczu [Sociotopography of the city of Elbląg in the
Middle Ages] (Toruń: Adam Marszałek, 1992) (In Polish).
5. Keti Lelo, “A GIS Approach to Urban History: Rome in the Eighteenth Century,” ISPRS International
Journal of Geo-Information 3, no. 4 (2014): 1293-316.
6. Jakub Kuna and Łukasz Kowalski, “Exploring a Non-Existent City via Historical GIS System by the
Example of the Jewish District ‘Podzamcze’ in Lublin (Poland),” Journal of Cultural Heritage 46
(2020): 328-34.
7. Justin Colson, “Reinterpreting Space: Mapping People and Relationships in Late Medieval and Early
Modern English Cities Using GIS,” Urban History 47, no. 3 (2020): 384-400.
8. Matko Matija Marušić, “Mapping Housing Market in Late Medieval Dubrovnik: The Saint Nicholas
Sexterium (ca. 1420-1450),” in Mapping Urban Changes. Mapiranje urbanih promjena, ed. Ana
Plosnić Škarić (Zagreb: Institut za povijest umjetnosti, 2017), 294-311.
9. Tim Bisschops, “It Is All about Location: GIS, Property Records and the Role of Space in Shaping
Late Medieval Urban Life. The Case of Antwerp Around 1400,” Post-Classical Archaeologies 2
(2012): 83-106; Heidi Deneweth, Ward Leloup, and Mathijs Speecke, “Visualising Urban Social
Change, Bruges 1300–1700,” in Mapping Urban Changes. Mapiranje urbanih promjena, ed. Ana
Plosnić Škarić (Zagreb: Institut za povijest umjetnosti, 2017), 336-63; Hélène Noizet, “Spaces and
Spatialities in Paris between the Ninth and Nineteenth Centuries: Urban Morphology Generated by the
Management of Otherness,” Urban History 47 (2000): 401-20.
10. See, for example, HisGIS, accessed July 22, 2021, https://hisgis.nl; VILLUX X, accessed July 22,
2021, https://www.luxatlas.lu.
11. Don Lafreniere, Luke Weidner, Daniel Trepal, Sarah Fayen Scarlett, John Arnold, Robert Pastel, and
Ryan Williams, “Public Participatory Historical GIS,” Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative
and Interdisciplinary History 52, no. 3 (2019): 132-49.
12. See articles in two volumes using results of Irish Historic Towns Atlas project: Maps and Texts: Using
the Irish Historic Towns Atlas, ed. Howard B. Clarke and Sarah Gearty (Dublin: Royal Irish Academy,
2013) and More Maps and Texts: Exploring the Irish Historic Towns Atlas, ed. Howard B. Clarke and
Sarah Gearty (Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, 2018). See also some examples and results from the com-
parative urban analysis made by medieval urban historians pointed by Anngret Simms, “The European
Historic Towns Atlas Project: Origin and Potential,” in Lords and Towns, 25-27. See also a discussion
about problems and doubts about carrying comparative historical analysis, for example, Raymond
Grew, “The Case for Comparing Histories,” The American Historical Review 85, no. 4 (1980): 763-78;
Philippa Levine, “Is Comparative History Possible?” History and Theory 53 (2014): 331-47.
13. Denecke, “Comparative Approaches,” 33-61.
14. Anngret Simms, “The Challenge of Comparative Urban History for the European Historic Towns Atlas
Project,” in Political functions of Urban Spaces and Town Types Through the Ages, ed. Roman Czaja,
Zdzisław Noga, Ferdinand Opll, and Martin Scheutz (Cracow—Torun—Vienna: TNT, Bohlau Verlag,
2019), 303-21.
15. More about project: UrbanOnto—Historical Ontology of Urban Spaces, accessed July 22, 2021,
https://urbanonto.ihpan.edu.pl.
16. “An ontology is a claim on/for knowledge that attempts to model what is known about a domain of
discourse. A domain ontology does not aim to exhaustively list all concepts in a domain, but rather
to build an abstract (yet extendable) philosophical (yet practical) conceptualization of the essence of
knowledge in a domain.” [in:] Tamer E. El-Diraby, “Domain Ontology for Construction Knowledge,”
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 139, no. 7 (2013): 768.
17. Eva Chodějovská, Sarah Gearty, and Daniel Stracke, “The ‘Digital Turn’ of the European Historic
Towns Atlas: Comparing Solutions for Digital Atlas Production and Online Presentation,” Città e sto-
ria X, no. 1 (2015): 89-121.
18. Katarzyna Chałka, Robert Olszewski, and Jerzy Zieliński, “Bazy danych obiektów topograficznych i
ogólnogeograficznych—zakres merytoryczny i techniczny opracowywanego projektu rozporządzenia
MSWIA” [Databases of topographic and general geographic objects—substantive and technical
scope of the draft ordinance of the Ministry of Interior and Administration being prepared], Roczniki
Geomatyki IX, no. 6(50) (2011): 89-102 (In Polish).
19. Tomasz Panecki, “Koncepcja struktury bazy danych historycznych obiektów topograficznych” [The
concept of historical topographic objects’ database] (PhD thesis, Uniwersytet Warszawski, 2018) (In
Polish).
20. Frederico Fonseca, Max J. Egenhofer, Clodoveu A. Davis, and Karla A. Borges, “Ontologies and
Knowledge Sharing in Urban GIS,” Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 24, no. 3 (2000):
251-72; Kamran Munir and M. Sheraz Anjum, “The Use of Ontologies for Effective Knowledge
Modelling and Information Retrieval,” Applied Computing and Informatics 14, no. 2 (2018): 116-26.
21. Humphrey Southall and Paula Aucott, “Expressing History through a Geo-Spatial Ontology,” ISPRS
International Journal of Geo-Information 8, no. 8 (2019): 362; Bogumił Szady, Metodologia tworze-
nia czasowo-przestrzennych baz danych dla rozwoju osadnictwa oraz podziałów terytorialnych
[Methodology for building spatio-temporal databases of settlement development and territorial divi-
sions], Zenodo, 2019, accessed July 22, 2021, http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3751266 (In Polish).
22. Ryszard Żelichowski and Paweł E. Weszpiński, William Heerlein Lindley. Plan Warszawy 1912. Plan
niwelacyjny miasta Warszawy. Zdjęcie pod kierunkiem Głównego Inżyniera W.H. Lindleya [William
Heerlein Lindley. Plan of Warsaw 1912. Leveling plan of the city of Warsaw. Survey under the supervi-
sion of Chief Engineer W.H. Lindley] (Warszawa: Muzeum Warszawy, 2016) (In Polish).
23. Archiwum Państwowe w Warszawie [State Archive in Warsaw], accessed July 22, 2021, https://www.
warszawa.ap.gov.pl/lindley/planylindleyow.html (In Polish), sign. 72/1001/0/0734R, sheets 1-22.
A more detailed 1:250 plan is available in the Historical Map tab of the Map of Warsaw website,
Map of Warsaw—Office of Surveying and Cadastre (BGiK), accessed July 22, 2021, http://mapa.
um.warszawa.pl/en/index.html.
24. Żelichowski and Weszpiński, William Heerlein Lindley, 208 (In Polish).
25. Daniela Kosacka, Północna Warszawa w XVIII wieku [Northern Warsaw in the 18th century]
(Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1970), 84-85 (In Polish).
26. Conzen, Alnwick, Northumberland, 5.
27. Ibid.
28. Definition of “park” from UrbanOnto by A. Łupienko: “a separate urban plot or a group of plots
largely covered with greenery, open-spaced or wooded, most often connected with walking paths,
with a small share of buildings, often separated by a fence, serving public purposes” (“wydzielona
parcela miejska lub grupa parcel w znaczącym stopniu pokryta zielenią, otwarta lub zalesiona, skomu-
nikowana najczęściej ścieżkami spacerowymi, z niewielkim udziałem zabudowy, często wydzielona
ogrodzeniem, służąca celom publicznym”).
29. Plan Miasta Stołecznego Warszawy—Polona [Plan of the Capital City of Warsaw—Polona], accessed
July 22, 2021, https://polona.pl/item/plan-miasta-stolecznego-warszawy,NTM0ODA0MzI/2/#info:me
tadata (In Polish).
30. National Integration of Land Records (KIEG), accessed July 22, 2021, https://integracja.gugik.
gov.pl/cgi-bin/KrajowaIntegracjaEwidencjiGruntow; Topographic Objects Database (BDOT10k)
WMS service, accessed July 22, 2021, https://mapy.geoportal.gov.pl/wss/service/pub/guest/
kompozycja_BDOT10k_WMS/MapServer/WMSServer.
31. See more, for example, Ferdinand Opll, “The European Atlas of Historic Towns. Project, Vision,
Achievements,” Ler História 60 (2011): 169-82; Nick Millea, Keith Parry, and Adrian Phillips, “The
European Historic Towns Atlas Project and the British contribution,” IMCoS Journal 153 (2018):
26-36; also in critical way: Conzen, “Retrieving the Pre-Industrial Built Environments of Europe.”
The full list of already published volumes of HTA series and digital distribution map is available here:
accessed March 17, 2022, http://www.uni-muenster.de/Staedtegeschichte/en/portal/staedteatlanten/
karte.html.
32. Heinz Stoob, “The Historic Town Atlas: Problems and Working methods,” in The Comparative History
of Urban Origins in Non-Roman Europe: Ireland, Wales, Denmark, Germany, Poland and Russia from
the Ninth to the Thirteenth Century, ed. Howard B. Clarke and Anngret Simms (Oxford, England:
B.A.R., 1985), 602.
33. Howard B. Clarke, “Construction and Deconstruction. Components of an Historic Towns Atlas
Methodology,” in Städteatlanten. Vier Jahrzehnte Atlasarbeit in Europa [Town Atlases. Four
decades of atlas work in Europe], ed. Wilfried Ehbrecht (Köln-Weimar-Wien: Böhlau Verlag, 2013),
33-35; Holger T. Gräf and Andrea Pühringer, “Back to the Romans? The Use of Nineteenth-Century
Cadastral Maps in the Reconstruction of the Urban Past. Experiences from the Austrian and Hessian
Historic Towns Atlases,” in Städteatlanten. Vier Jahrzehnte Atlasarbeit in Europa [Town Atlases.
Four decades of atlas work in Europe], ed. Wilfried Ehbrecht (Köln-Weimar-Wien: Böhlau Verlag,
2013), 207-208, 214.
34. For example, the Buda cadastre dates from 1873, and Toruń from 1910-1915; Katalin Simon, Buda.
Part II (1686-1848) (Budapest: Budapest City Archives, HAS RCH Institute of History, 2017); Roman
Czaja and Radosław Golba, eds., Toruń. Tom I Prusy Królewskie i Warmia, zeszyt 8 [Toruń. Volume I
Royal Prussia and Warmia, issue 8] (Toruń: Towarzystwo Naukowe w Toruniu, 2019) (In Polish).
35. Conzen, “Retrieving the Pre-Industrial Built Environments of Europe”; Clarke, “Construction and
Deconstruction.”
36. Simms, “The Challenge of Comparative Urban History,” 303-21; Denecke, “Comparative Approaches,”
33-61.
37. Peter Clark, “Introduction,” in Small Towns in Early Modern Europe, ed. Peter Clarke (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1995), 7; Agnieszka Bartoszewicz, “Miasto czy wieś? Małe miasta
polskie w późnym średniowieczu” [Town or village? Small Polish towns in the late Middle Ages],
Przegląd Historyczny 99, no. 1 (2008): 123-24 (In Polish); Christina Rosén, “Urbanism and the Very
Small Town. A Case Study from Western Sweden,” in Urban Variation. Utopia, Planning and Practice,
ed. Per Cornell, Lars Ersgård, and Andrine Nilsen (Lulu Press Inc., 2018), 41, 49, 53-54.
38. Marcel IJsselstijn, “Tracing the Persistence of Medieval Plot Boundaries in a Central Street: Breestraat
in Leiden, The Netherlands,” in Rural Riches & Royal Rags? Studies on Medieval and Modern
Archaeology, Presented to Frans Theuws, ed. Mirjam Kars, Roos van Oosten, Marcus A. Roxburgh,
and Arno Verhoeven (Zwolle: SPA-Uitgevers, 2018), 237-38; Vítor Oliveira, Urban Morphology. An
Introduction to the Study of the Physical Form of Cities (Dordrecht: Springer, 2016), 24.
39. Anna Berdecka, Lokacje i zagospodarowanie miast królewskich w Małopolsce za Kazimierza
Wielkiego (1333–1370) [Foundations and development of royal towns in Lesser Poland during
the reign of Casimir the Great (1333–1370)]. Studia i Materiały z Historii Kultury Materialnej 55
(Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków-Gdańsk-Łódź: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1982), 66-67 (In
Polish); Cezary Buśko, “Stan badań nad parcelą mieszczańską w średniowiecznych miastach śląskich”
[The state of research on burgeoise plot in medieval Silesian towns], Kwartalnik Historii Kultury
Materialnej 43, no. 3 (1995): 344 (In Polish).
40. Holger Th. Gräf, “Leicestershire Small Towns and Pre-Industrial Urbanisation,” Transactions.
Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society 68 (1994): 111.
41. Clark, “Introduction,” 1; Bartoszewicz, “Miasto czy wieś?” [Town or village?], 123-24 (In Polish);
Rosén, “Urbanism and the Very Small Town,” 41, 49, 53-54.
42. Irish Historic Towns Atlas. Royal Irish Academy, accessed July 22, 2021, https://www.ria.ie/research-
projects/irish-historic-towns-atlas; Österreichischer Städteatlas. Kézikönyvtár [Austrian Town Atlas.
Reference Library], accessed July 22, 2021, https://www.arcanum.com/hu/online-kiadvanyok/
OsterreichischerStadtatlas-osterreichischer-stadteatlas-1 (In German); Atlas Historyczny Miast
Polskich. Oficjalna strona projektu wydawniczego Atlas Historyczny Miast Polskich [Historical
Atlas of Polish Towns. The official website of the Historical Atlas of Polish Towns publishing proj-
ect], accessed July 22, 2021, http://atlasmiast.umk.pl (In Polish); Hungarian Atlas of Historic Towns,
accessed July 22, 2021, https://www.varosatlasz.hu/en; Europäische Städteatlanten [European Historic
Towns Atlases], accessed July 22, 2021, https://www.uni-muenster.de/Staedtegeschichte/en/portal/
staedteatlanten/index.html.
43. Alexander M. Tait, “Visual Hierarchy and Layout,” The Geographic Information Science & Technology
Body of Knowledge 2nd Quarter, 2018, accessed March 17, 2022, https://gistbok.ucgis.org/bok-topics/
visual-hierarchy-and-layout.
44. Ferdinand Opll, “Kommentar” [Commentary], in Marchegg. Österreichischer Städteatlas, 2.
Lieferung [Marchegg. Austrian Towns Atlas, 2nd edition], ed. Ferdinand Opll (Wien: Wiener Stadt-
und Landesarchiv, Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Stadtgeschichtsforschung, 1985) (In German).
45. Victoria Paraschiva Batariuc, Șerban Dragomirescu, and Dan Dumitru Iacob, eds. Siret. Atlas
istoric al oraşelor din România, A-2 [Siret. Romanian Historic Town Atlas, A-2] (Bucureşti: Editura
Enciclopedică, 2010) (In Romanian).
46. Mark Hennessy, Trim. Irish Historic Towns Atlas 14 (Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, 2004), 9, map 2.
47. Tadhg O’Keeffe, Fethard. Irish Historic Towns Atlas 13 (Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, 2003), 7,
map 2.
48. Alois Niederstätter, “Kommentar” [Commentary], in Feldkirch. Österreichischer Städteatlas, 6
[Feldkirch. Austrian Towns Atlas, 6], ed. Ferdinand Opll (Wien: Wiener Stadt- und Landesarchiv,
Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Stadtgeschichtsforschung, 2000) (In German).
49. Franz-Heinz Hye, “Kommentar” [Commentary], in Kufstein. Österreichischer Städteatlas, 2.
Lieferung [Kufstein. Austrian Towns Atlas, 2nd edition], ed. Ferdinand Opll (Wien: Wiener Stadt-
und Landesarchiv, Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Stadtgeschichtsforschung, Franz Deuticke
Verlagsgesellschaft m.b.H., 1985), endnote 58 (In German).
50. István Tringli, Sátoraljaújhely. Magyar Várostörténeti Atlasz 2 [Sátoraljaújhely. Hungarian Historic
Towns Atlas 2] (Budapest: HAS Institute of History, 2011): map C.1.1 (In Hungarian).
51. For example in Świdnica; Rafał Eysymontt and Mateusz Goliński eds., Świdnica. Tom IV Śląsk, zeszyt
5 [Świdnica. Volume IV Silesia, issue 5], (Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego,
2008): map 5 (In Polish).
52. Zdzisław Noga ed., Stary Sącz. Tom V Małopolska, zeszyt 8 [Stary Sącz. Volume V Lesser Poland,
issue 8], (Toruń-Kraków: Towarzystwo Naukowe w Toruniu, 2018): map 3.7.
53. Ibid., 12, 14.
54. “[t]he long gardens at the rear of the burgage plots enabled the burgesses to grow vegetables and herbs,
as well as to plant orchards for apples, pears and other fruit”: John Bradley, Kilkenny. Irish Historic
Towns Atlas, 10 (Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, 2000), 4-5. In the Kilkenny volume, there is also a
land-use plan of the town based on the 1654 Civil Survey (Bradley, Kilkenny, 5, Figure 2). That plan
did not show plots.
55. Tringli, Sátoraljaújhely, 47 (In Hungarian).
56. Marta Młynarska-Kaletynowa, ed., Niemcza. Atlas Historyczny Miast Polskich, IV–4 [Niemcza.
Historical Atlas of Polish Towns, IV–4] (Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego,
2003), 11-12, 25, 27 (In Polish); Marta Młynarska-Kaletynowa, ed., Trzebnica. Atlas Historyczny
Miast Polskich, IV–3 [Trzebnica. Historical Atlas of Polish Towns, IV–3] (Wrocław: Wydawnictwo
Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 2003), 9, 11, 28, 30 (In Polish).
57. Mateusz Goliński, “Działka miejska w śląskich źródłach pisanych (XIII–XVI w.)” [Urban plot in
Silesian written sources (13th–16th c.)], Kwartalnik Historii Kultury Materialnej 43, no. 3 (1995):
333-41 (In Polish); Jayne Rimmer, “The Language of Property: Vernacular in the Context of Late
Medieval Urban Identities,” in Vernacularity in England and Wales c. 1300–1550, ed. Elisabeth
Salter and Helen Wicker (Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 2011), 269-93; Paweł Cembrzyński and
Maciej Radomski, “‘Empty’ Space in Central European Medieval Towns through an Interdisciplinary
Perspective,” Urban History 49, no. 1(2020): 5-6. doi:10.1017/S0963926820000760.
58. For example, Hans Strahm, “Die Area in den Städten” [Area in towns], Schweizer Beiträge zur allge-
meinen Geschichte 3 (1945): 22-61 (In German); Thomas Lewerenz, Die Größenentwicklung der
Kleinstädte in Ost- und Westpreußen bis zum Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts [The development of the size
of the small towns in East and West Prussia up to the end of the 18th century] (Marburg/Lahn: J. G.
Herder-Institut, 1976), 50-53 (In German).
59. For example, Jurij Kanjaschin, “Parzelle als Flurbestandteil des mittelaltelrichen Burgund (nach den
Quellen des Mâconbezirkes im X.-XI. Jahrhundert)” [Parcella as a Field Part in Medieval Burgundy
(Based on Sources of the County of Mâcon, X–XI Centuries)], Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und
Wirtschaftsgeschichte 92, no. 4 (2005): 440-52 (In German).
62. Terry R. Slater, “The Analysis of Burgage Patterns in Medieval Towns,” Area 13, no. 3 (1981): 211.
63. Vanessa Harding, “Space, Property, and Propriety in Urban England,” Journal of Interdisciplinary
History 32, no. 4 (2002): 550.
64. Ibid.
65. “Parcelou [. . .] rozumět vyměřený a ohraničený výsek plochy obsahující většinou jednu obytnou
stavbu a její příslušenství. Je předmětem svobodné, dědičné držby (nájmu) a zpoplatněna zeměpánovi
[. . .] Spolu s obytným domem představuje základní prostorovou jednotku městského půdorysu
a samozřejmě také úhelný kámen majetkové struktury se zásadním dopadem na sociální postavení
majitele (držitele)—jen (quasi) vlastník mohl být plnoprávným měšťanem”: Rudolf Procházka, “Area
. . . sive parva, sive magna . . . Parcela ve vývoji raného a komunálního města,” [Area . . . sive parva,
sive magna . . . The House Plot in the Development of the Early and Communal Town] in Forum
urbes medii aevi. 4 : parcelace a uliční síť ve vrcholně středověkých městech střední Evropy. Sborník
příspěvků z konference FUMA konané 20.—22. 4. 2005 v Brně [Forum urbes medii aevi. 4: parcela-
tion and street network in the high medieval towns of Central Europe. Proceedings of the FUMA con-
ference held on 20-22. 4. 2005 in Brno], ed. Zdeněk Měřínský (Brno: Archaia, 2007), 6 (In Czech).
66. “parcela mieszczańska to wyodrębniony granicami z organizmu miejskiego fragment przestrzeni wraz
z funkcjonującą w jego obrębie zabudową, stanowiący samodzielny kompleks gospodarczy”: Buśko,
“Stan badań nad parcelą mieszczańską w średniowiecznych miastach śląskich” [The state of research
on burgeoise plot in medieval Silesian towns] (In Polish).
67. “[. . .] analiza najmniejszej jednostki układu urbanistycznego, jaką była działka”: Roman Czaja,
Socjotopografia miasta Elbląga w średniowieczu [Sociotopography of the city of Elbląg in the Middle
Ages], 24 (In Polish).
68. Słownik Języka Polskiego PWN działka [PWN Polish Language Dictionary plot], “kawałek gruntu
przeznaczony pod uprawy rolne lub zabudowę,” accessed March 17, 2022, https://sjp.pwn.pl/szukaj/
dzia%C5%82ka.html (In Polish).
69. Mateusz Goliński, email correspondence with authors, February 14, 2020.
70. Urszula Sowina, “Średniowieczna działka miejska w świetle źródeł pisanych” [Medieval urban plot in
the light of written sources], Kwartalnik Historii Kultury Materialnej 43, no 3 (1995): 323 (In Polish).
71. Urszula Sowina, email correspondence with authors, February 16, 2020.
72. Cembrzyński and Radomski, “‘Empty’ Spaces,” 5.
73. “Podstawowym elementem miasta średniowiecznego była parcela i związane z nią prawo posiadania
domu i jego wolnego dziedziczenia, zapewniające poczucie miejskiej wspólnoty, która stanowiła trzon
świadomości mieszczańskiej. Parcelacja była jednocześnie głównym czynnikiem procesu tworze-
nia geometrycznej kompozycji miasta”: Rafał Eysymontt, Kod genetyczny miasta. Średniowieczne
miasta lokacyjne Dolnego Śląska na tle urbanistyki europejskiej [The city’s genetic code. The
medieval location towns in Lower Silesia against the background of European urbanism] (Wrocław:
Wydawnictwo VIA NOVA, 2009), 52 (In Polish).
74. Rolf Hammel, “Hereditas, area und domus: Bodenrecht, Grundstücksgefüge und Sozialstruktur in
Lübeck vom 12. bis zum 16. Jahrhundert” [Hereditas, area and domus: Land right, plot fabric and
social structure in Lübeck from the 12th to the 16th century”], Jahrbuch für Hausforschung 35 (1984-
1986): 175-199 (In German).
75. Last three from Lewerenz, Die Größenentwicklung der Kleinstädte [The development of the size of the
small towns] (In German).
76. “Bezeichnung für abgegrenzte—bebaute wie unbebaute—Teile der Erdoberfläche [. . .]
Sachenrechtliches Charakteristikum der d[eu]t[schen] und verwandten Rechte ist die strenge
Differenzierung der Grundstücke [. . .], einschließlich] ihrer Bestandteile von den bewegl. Sachen”:
Hubert Drüppel, “Grundstücke” [Land plot], in Lexicon des Mittelalters [Lexicon of Middle Ages], 4
(München-Zürich: Artemis Verlag, 1989), col. 1754 (In German).
77. “[. . .] jede einzelne im Kataster vermessen Fläche meint”: Fred Kaspar, “Wachsende Städte und
bürgerliche Besiedlung—Städtische Hausstätten im Wandel der Zeit. Vergleichende Untersuchungen
zu archäologischen und bauhistorischen Befunden in westfälischen Städten” [Growing towns and
bourgeois settlement—urban houses through the ages. Comparative studies on archaeological and
architectural findings in Westphalian towns”], in Die vermessene Stadt. Mittelalterliche Stadtplanung
zwischen Mythos und Befund [The measured city. Medieval town planning between myth and evi-
dence], ed. Matthias Untermann, and Alfred Falk (Paderborn: Neumann Druck Heidelberg, 2004), 147
(In German).
78. “Der Begriff Hausstätte bezieht sich hingegen auf eine besitzmäßige und funktionale Gesamtheit,
bestehend aus bebauter Fläche, Hofraum sowie Garten, die sich also aus verschiedenen Parzellen
zusammensetzt”: Kasper, “Wachsende Städte” [Growing Towns],” 147 (In German).
79. Karsten Igel, Zwischen Bürgerhaus und Frauenhaus. Stadgestalt, Grundbesitz und Sozialstruktur im
spätmittelalterlichen Greifswald [Between municipal hall and women’s refuge. Urban form, land prop-
erty and social structure in late medieval Greifswald] (Köln–Weimar–Wien: Böhlau Verlag, 2010) (In
German).
80. Berdecka, Lokacje i zagospodarowanie [Foundations and development], 62 (In Polish).
81. “abgegrenzter Platz zum Bau von Gebäuden, Bauplatz, Baustelle, im weiteren Sinn einfach abgegren-
zter Grund und Boden. Area ist die allgemeine Bezeichnung für den städtischen Grundbesitz soweit er,
im Gegensatz zum öffentlichen Grund und Boden, zu privater Nutzung oder als Sondereigen ausge-
schieden war”: Strahm, “Die Area” [Area], 22 (In German).
82. Bisschops, “It is All About Location.”
83. Krzysztof Mikulski, Przestrzeń i społeczeństwo Torunia od końca XIV do początku XVIII wieku [Space
and society of Toruń from the end od 14th to the beginning of 17th century] (Toruń: Wydawnictwo
UMK, 1999), 47 (In Polish).
84. For example, Keith D. Lilley, “Mapping the Medieval City: Plan Analysis and Urban History,” Urban
History 27, no. 1 (2000): 5-30.
85. Ibid.
86. Henryk Münch, Geneza rozplanowania miast wielkopolskich XIII i XIV wieku [The genesis of urban
layout of Greater Poland towns in 13th and 14th century] (Kraków: Gebethner i Wolff, 1946) (In
Polish).
87. Mikulski, Przestrzeń i społeczeństwo [Space and society], 47-53 (In Polish); Rosén, “Urbanism and
the Very Small Town,” 68.
88. Rosén, “Urbanism and the Very Small Town,” 68; Cembrzyński and Radomski, “‘Empty’ Spaces.”
89. Conzen, Alnwick, Northumberland, 5, 67-69, 92-94.
90. Rosén, “Urbanism and the Very Small Town,” 56.
91. Conzen, Alnwick, Northumberland, XX.
92. Buśko, “Stan badań nad parcelą mieszczańską w średniowiecznych miastach śląskich” [The state of
research on burgeoise plot in medieval Silesian towns], 345 (In Polish).
93. Mikulski, Przestrzeń i społeczeństwo [Space and society], 50, 56 (In Polish).
94. Edgar Herbert Granger, “Aristotle on Genus and Differentia,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 22,
no. 1 (1984): 1-23, doi:10.1353/hph.1984.0001.
Author Biographies
Katarzyna Słomska-Przech is an assistant professor at the Tadeusz Manteuffel Institute of History of the
Polish Academy of Sciences. She specializes in historical cartography and cognitive cartography. She
defended her PhD thesis, “The impact of publication medium on maps’ usability,” in March 2021. With
Tomasz Panecki and Wojciech Pokojski, she recently published “Heat Maps: Perfect Maps for Quick
Reading? Comparing Usability of Heat Maps with Different Levels of Generalization” in International
Journal of Geo-Information (2021).
Michał Słomski is a research assistant at the Tadeusz Manteuffel Institute of History of the Polish Academy
of Sciences. His field of interests concerns at problematics of space of pre-industrial towns, settlement net-
work of Early Modern Poland and real estates belonging to the Catholic bishops in East-Central Europe. He
is preparing a PhD thesis about relations between the urban space and inhabitants of small towns in Early
Modern period on an example of Dolsk, small town from Poland, to the mid-seventeenth century.

Slomska Przech Slomski 2022 Urban Plot Developing A Consistent Definition For Comparative Urban Studies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Slomska Przech Slomski 2022 Urban Plot Developing A Consistent Definition For Comparative Urban Studies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1089942

Original Research Article

Urban Plot: Developing a

Consistent Definition for Article reuse guidelines:

Katarzyna Słomska-Przech1 and Michał Słomski1

Urban Plots in GIS: Warsaw Case Study

Relations between Plots and Streets

Figures 2 to 4 present cases of interweaving layers—of plots and streets—encountered during

Building without a Plot

Single Building in Several Plots

Vectorization of Urban Plots—Summary

•• relation between plan elements

Urban Plots on HTA Plans

Figure 13. Part of cadastral base map of Dublin from 1846-1847.

Figure 14. Part of cadastral base map of Marchegg from 1821-1822.

Figure 17. Cadastral base map of Świdnica (Poland) from 1895.

Urban Plot—State-of-the-Art Review

and a slightly different methodology.57 Nevertheless, we incidentally availed ourselves of such

Various Definitions from Literature

How to Define the Term “Urban Plot (działka)”—Proposed HOUSe Ontology

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

You might also like