You are correct about how-to map apartment blocks (other colours than black are also available) & that is exactly how I map such many-floor buildings. These 3-level 1970s terraced buildings in St Anns are a halfway-house between apartments & 'normal' terraces. You are correct that the map representation is narrower than their actual footprint in RL; that is because this is a map and not RL (as one good example, the actual buildings are many metres wide whilst the map is just a few millimetres). No-one that lives within these terraces has yet complained.

Hello Jerry
Each apartment occupies 2 floors of a 3-floor apartment, which is more complex than you describe & difficult to map within OSM constraints ( I do not know of any current 3D representation). I've chosen a kludge which allows them to be accurately represented on the map by place. Fortunately, people live within RL rather than a map. I would rather map these dwellings as accurately as is currently possible rather than wait for perfection.

So you reckon that I should just keep throwing darts at the [table of amenities](osm.wiki/Key:amenity?uselang=en-GB) until I finally hit one that is acceptable to you? If you cannot define which is the acceptable tag then I will not accept your definition that the one used is unacceptable.

You state:
> Post Box must be a place where one can post letters.

Not in the Wiki definition, it is not. *amenity=post_box* currently states:
> A box for the reception of mail. Alternative mail-carriers can be tagged via operator=*

Either we all refer to an independent, unbiased definition or OSM is lost.

This is a piece of street-furniture owned by the Royal Mail that receives post; exactly equivalent already to the *Wiki* definition. *“There are more pillar boxes in this universe than you comprehend, Mr Bond”*.

You state that adding what you wrongly call *“an erroneous tag”* caused *“a) someone posting notes about it”*. You are not a very good intelligence agent, Mr Bond. In my [original tags](osm.org/node/4114255916/history) I put *note=NOT for public post; undefined purpose*. ~3 months ago the chap from York explained what they were for. Now, *that* is helpful. Having corroborated that info I then changed all the notes on existing nodes.

You further insinuate that my adding what you wrongly call *“an erroneous tag”* will cause *“b) someone (to) use it to post a letter”*. Only if they have the key to open it, Mr Bond.

These boxes fit exactly into the description in the Wiki. I'm sorry that you do not like my actions. I'm changing nothing.

Whilst happy to be told what I've done wrong, if you do not add the positive bit (how to do it correctly) your actions + words are a waste of space.

Hi nosher, welcome to OSM! I'm the man that you can blame for the presence of all those houses north of Carlton Hill (and thus absence south of Carlton Hill). I drew an arbitrary line down the Hill & decided to map all streets north of it; I'm currently doing something similar with houses south of Westdale Lane, and plan to fill in all the gaps between the two. Eventually, I'll map the streets to the south of the hill (unless you do it first, of course).

Unfortunately, I also can offer zero assistance with iOS apps. Myself, I use an Android app in the field to collect info, then do all the map updates at home under Linux using JOSM.

You may be interested to look at osm.wiki/Nottingham/Pub_Meetup for the monthly Nottingham meet-ups, alternating between Nottingham & Derby (September is in Nottm).

Will is both a senior mapper & also has local knowledge as he lives in Beeston; I'm happy to defer to him.

Why do you want to know?

Hi SomeoneElse

I am deliberately ignoring The Maarssen Mapper, at this time. This individual is consciously trolling me and attempting to provoke undue responses. It's a very clever action by a questionable person. I need to have time to calm down & regain balance following a concerted attack, as explained previously.

Everyone else has respected my auto-responses.

The Maarssen Mapper has deleted my mapping without consultation and altered my former mapping, also without consultation. I understand that that is considered abuse by the DWG. None of that has provoked a response from me, so he has switched to making provocative comments to changesets.

There is nothing whatsoever that could be said in response to the opening comment. Ask yourself: “What would *I* say in response to a comment like that?”

Apart, perhaps, from asking for the The Maarssen Mapper to be given a cease-and-desist order, at this moment I have nothing to put to the talk-gb list.

I've formulated my evidence with the changeset prior to this one & will shortly be writing it up. Being able to express myself cogently takes me a long time - sorry about that. When complete, I will have something to say. Meanwhile, I've got yesterday's mapping to writeup, and a Diary entry to make.

I'll say something when I've got something to say.

This is an automated response: sorry, but I'm too busy mapping to be able to spare the time to respond to you. Thank you for your interest in my mapping. -Alex Kemp

This is an automated response: sorry, but I'm too busy mapping too be able to spare the time to respond to you. Thank you for your interest in my mapping. -Alex Kemp

This is an automated response: sorry, but I'm too busy mapping too be able to spare the time to respond to you. Thank you for your interest in my mapping. -Alex Kemp

Hi Andy
 
Yes, you are correct. I apologise to Will, hoping that he reads this.
 
50 years ago I read in a book that, in the 1800s, the staff at Lunatic Asylums would lock all their inmates into their cells at every Full Moon. A little later I was hitch-hiking and got a lift from someone that turned out to be a nurse in a Lunatic Asylum (or whatever they were called at the time) (with hindsight just now, it's entirely possible that that person worked at Rampton, a high-security installation for the criminally insane; I worked for them myself providing network support ~15 years ago). Eagerly, I asked him if he could confirm this snippet of information from the previous century. He laughed, and said “never mind 100 years ago; it's what we do today”.
 
Tonight in Nottingham the skies were clear for the first time in days. I looked up at the moon in surprise, and slapped my forehead. Checking the 'net, the next full moon is in 3 days time, at 5:27 a.m., but the more important one to watch out for is the Harvest Month next month (3:05 p.m. 16 September) (the power of moons themselves act in power cycles; there are two peaks: one at Easter (predominantly physical) and one in Autumn (affects friends & family).
 
I've been watching Moons for the last 50 years, diligently. Each & every full moon causes emotional disturbance in the human race. Folks find it more difficult to sleep, to behave or cogitate rationally, and the race as a whole becomes more prone to emotional / violent outbursts.
 
I received yet another provocative comment today: osm.org/changeset/41449409 (deeply cynical, that one). For the next 3 months I am going to respond to *all* comments with an auto-response (see next comment). Anyone in future that deletes any of my work will have it undeleted & themselves immediately reported for abuse with a recommendation for removal of mapping privileges.
 
Thanks for reading.

This is an automated response: sorry, but I'm too busy mapping too be able to spare the time to respond to you. Thank you for your interest in my mapping. -Alex Kemp

Hi Will
 
Once again: criticise my reasons & we can have a useful discussion. Criticise my actions, or myself personally, and we can never have a useful discussion. On this matter, and your statements, look in the mirror.
 
I said: you punch me, I punch you back, often & hard. Remember, you started this. That will continue until I receive an apology for your previous behaviour + an obvious change of tack.
 
Examine my reasons. If you find those reasons flawed then explain why. Do that & we can get on. Keep making threats & personal comments & we shall just be back to handbags at dawn.

Hi Will.
 
A month ago I added osm.org/user/alexkemp/diary/39062 (Nottinghamshire Civil Parishes - names for unnamed areas) then a couple of days ago osm.org/user/alexkemp/diary/39247 (Derbyshire Civil Parishes - names for unnamed areas).

I put the July Diary entry up so that folks had a chance to comment on it. Nobody said nothing.

The issue for me here is that you have not addressed my reasoning. Not one scrap of it. You dismiss the relevance of these Unparished Area, but with zero reasoning. Your decision & word is sufficient.

I have spent days & weeks researching, deciding & communicating those results to all who would pay attention. Zero response. Then you accuse me of over-reacting.

It is worthless trying to reason with a man that ignores all you say in favour of his own emotional reactions. Diamonds to a pig.

I shall wait until Monday and my chance to obtain the council's view. Then reassess my position once I have sufficient information.

I'm going to be discussing this with the relevant local, city and/or county authorities in order to get the situation clear before I do or say anything else (unless I find my work summarily deleted, of course).

Hi Will.
 
Thank you for a much more reasonable response.
 
The reason that I felt the previous comments to be a “personal attack” was because they were a personal attack. To be told that a spelling mistake following 3 hours of painstaking boundary reset was “nonsense” and that you would therefore “delete this” (rather than correct the spelling mistake) can be registered at my end as nothing other than a personal attack. It is OK, Will. I'm a big boy and can take this kind of stuff, but if you punch me expect me to punch back.

Allow me please to correct a misapprehension on your part: I find zero items “controversial” in my recent mapping. Consider the following (and do correct if wrong):

1) Folks in Beeston get their bins emptied regularly
2) Folks in Beeston pay Council Tax
(that should probably be number (1)!)
3) All other aspects of local government occur in the normal fashion between them & the citizens

If the above is accurate, then Administration (notice the capital ‘A’ in that sentence) continues within the precincts of the Beeston Unparished Area just as much as it does within all surrounding Civil Parishes (caps again). And, if there is an *area* then there is a *boundary* to that area and, since we are talking here about Administration, such boundary is an “Administrative Boundary” for the Unparished Area, just as much as it is for the Civil Parish. Also, that boundary is ‘official’ to the same degree as the CP boundaries are ‘official’. Who, for crying out loud, do you think it is that decides the boundaries? Your next door neighbour? The little lad round the corner?

You state “administrative boundary mapping should be limited to official boundaries and not to indicate the absence of such a boundary”. What absence, exactly? The Unparished Areas have boundaries set by the same folks that set the CP boundaries. The difference is entirely in *who* pays the binmen, who paints the yellow lines on the road. Or did you think that the Fairies were responsible for all this?

Honestly, Will - have you lost your mind? When admin_level & all the rest of these boundaries were setup, folks did the best that they could to put in place an arrangement that would work for the entire world. The setup for the UK does not take into account all the ramifications of the changes from Thatcher days (1970s) and through into the current day. It is working, mostly, but has one huge hole which is having bad side-effects in the search, location & naming processes: namely, the Unparished Areas (UA).

I've put forward what I consider to be reasonable, simple and small methods to handle the UAs which will not impact any existing CPs nor the existing Administrative Boundary setup:

a) Enter the UA with it's existing name (they all have shapes & they all have names) and admin_level=10
b) Use designation=civil_parish | non-civil_parish (former for CP, latter for UA)

That's it. Why that gets up your nose & causes you to declare that UAs are black holes I have no idea.

Finally, explain how on earth my changeset comment “(Broxtowe) bring CPs into good order” can possibly “lead others to believe you have just added the civil parishes in Broxtowe”. You can only clean something that already exists. Will, I cannot decide whether your mind has ossified or you are suffering map envy. Please please please, try & reconcile yourself to the fact that someone else has just as much respect for the OSM map as you.

I've renamed "Beeston and Stapleford" as "Beeston". Of course, Stapleford (or at least, the parts of Stapleford that do not appear within the Beeston Unparished area) was already included within the map, since I've already gone through Broxtowe.

Restatement: Beeston *has* departed from Council control (but not, as I understand it, from County Council control), which is why it is an “Unparished area”. I'm surprised that Broxtowe hasn't threaten to delete it from the map.

http://cms.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/parishmaps.pdf (the non-existent Beeston and Stapleford parishes that you are complaining about). It is an unparished area, which covers a *bit* of Stapleford. Stapleford is it's own CP, which I shall add as soon as I get a chance to do so. Please complain to Broxtowe council if you do not like the way that they draw up their boundaries; I do not actually have any control over that.

If you consider that the naming is wrong, then rename it. As I understand it, Beeston is a perfectly valid part of Nottingham and has not, yet, departed from Council control.

There are very few folks mapping in Nottingham, and no women (that I know of) at all. Do you think that all this fuss, which has blown up into a storm just because I'm now mapping in areas which other folks, such as yourself, consider to be *their* territory, is one of the prime reasons for that?

I'm not going away. I *will* keep mapping throughout Nottingham wherever I see fit, whether you like it or not. And remember, what can be deleted can be re-instated.

Both Beeston + Nottingham level-10 relations have had the name changed to remove 'unparished' (even though that is the official description). I have relied on a ‘designation=non-civil_parish’ entry to discriminate between these & real CPs. See osm.wiki/User_talk:Csmale/ukboundaries for a fuller description.
 
I actually want to be able to remove the Nottingham level-8 + 10 relations & convert City-of-Nottingham to level-6;8;10.