Hi *Jay*, this is an extra to my previous reply this early morning.
 
The mixup in my Arnold mapping getting a changeset title that belonged with my S&D Railway mapping caused *me* to get mixed up in my response to you. Let's try again to separate the two & give you a more sensible response.
 
You said *“you changed Thomas Cook to Hays Travel”*.
 
I recalled from the S&D mapping that there was a central building that was the original terminus, and that it's name had changed in more modern times. I therefore thought almost all the way through my original reply that that was the building that you were speaking about. It also made sense since I did not recall changing any names of any buildings in the Arnold mapping (although of course I did change at least one, as the [History](osm.org/way/353944520/history) indicates).
 
Almost all the mapping that I did in Arnold in that changeset was to update the building outlines using JOSM's *cadastral parcels*. Shops had been placed in the middle of streets, some shops concatenated together & all sorts of things. It was a mess, similar to the mess that I made in my early mapping days due to not checking Bing's GPS offset.
 
Fortunately, the local council has a [StreetRegister](https://geoserver.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/streetregister/) which maintains an updated list of businesses & addresses with postcodes. I took the new-name of the business from that listing. Those names, addresses & postcodes are all available under a public licence. Unfortunately the whole thing has an unpleasant taste due to use of Ordnance Survey mapping on the website (postcodes, etc. do not belong to the OS, but they insist on a tickbox to view the mapping onscreen).
 
HTH

Hello Jay, thanks for the comment.
 
It is the latter rather than the former. If a local states that it is now an Estate Agent then I would definitely accept that (ah! I see that you have). Gosh, it seems very much longer than 8 months ago (I thought that it was during the pandemic & lockdown) & I can remember very little now about the specifics. I am also sorry that this Arnold (Nottingham) store got mixed up with my Stockton & Darlington mapping.
 
HTH

There are zero edits to be 'actioned'. I used Bing (offset checked) + the cadastral parcels to fix bad mapping & confirmed with Street Register that some address numbers were wrong & fixed those as well. Nothing was "copied" from anywhere.

Sorry that you got butt-hurt. Again. You really need to fix that.

If you believe any of that, then you are welcome to revert any or all of my edits.

All the best.

Hi Will

> the NCC Street Register mentioned in your changeset sources only relates to adopted highways in the city council area

The previous para is incorrect. *Street Register* also includes Arnold. Check it for yourself.

Hi there Marc.

Unfortunately, at this distance of time, the straightforward answer is "I do not know". My best guess is that it was supposed to be "Garage", but I do not know.

There are some Mapilliary photos taken at the time (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=52.979849027778&lng=-1.0716506944444&z=17&pKey=504470307563688), but those are for the Western Power boxes at the top of the street and, although next door to house#3, do not show the annex at all. The fact that there is NOT a photo of the building in question suggests that it is personal to house#3 (I would not take a photo in that case).

This location is far from where I live, and there is zero other reason to update the mapping there.

Sorry again, Marc. I have no idea what the designation stands for, if anything, or if it is a typo.

Hi *tyndale*
No. It is `landuse=grass` + `natural=wood` as joint tags (sorry, bit pedantic, but accurate).

I cannot recall the precise imagery for this specific junction. Speaking across the whole range of M6 junctions that I mapped that day, they varied from (a couple of sections) that had lots of bush to (almost all) completely forested (the parts closest to the road were tree-free, and these showed the grass; if not maintained in this way then vehicles could have been damaged by tree-limbs).

Away from the immediate motorway were some roundabouts that were grass-only, but it was clear that a policy decision had been taken to allow natural tree-growth around the motorway (and very luxuriant & healthy it looked, too).

If you live locally & know the area to have a different current landuse then please change my mapping. I am unable to visit myself due to Covid-19 lockdown, and of course the imagery that is available to use is often extremely old.

You wrote:
> Here you have deleted the ground surveyed old names (Rosehill School and Shepherd School) and replaced them with Bluecoat Aspley Academy.

I do not delete old names. I change them to "old_name". However, researching it I see that you are saying that my 'old_name' is wrong, and I apologise for that if so.

(the foll is out-of-date) I have not replaced it with 'Bluecoat Aspley'. You added it as 'Bluecoat Academy Primary School' 2 years ago (osm.org/changeset/60506732) and then again shortly after to 'Bluecoat Primary Academy' (osm.org/changeset/60513079). That is the name that I kept it to, since that is the location in EduBase and in the school website.

EduBase shows the predecessor to be 'Bluecoat Aspley' (https://get-information-schools.service.gov.uk/Establishments/Establishment/Details/145145#school-links). Hence my changes. If you have surveyed it and know better (which I do not doubt) then change the 'old_name' designations and add a note for future mappers so that they will not make the same mistake as me.

There is no need to write an annoyed changeset comment to me. Just change the 'old_name' to the correct 'old_names' with a note to say why. Why make a big deal of it?

I'm going to stop replying to your comments. Your irritated attitude is winding me up & wasting vast amounts of my time. Please stop reacting in such a juvenile manner and start behaving as an adult, please, with reason & balance.

Thanks for the info.

I've now dealt with another OneSchool in another county and was able to spot a mention of the Plymouth Brethren on *their* website. However, no actual 'official' name of the Operator. I shall remove Derbyshire CC for the reason you point out.

You are not accurate in your statement about my actions about setting the Operator. Instead of making authoritative statements, which are ignorant and likely to be wrong, Why not ask?

Your attitude stinks. I shall stop typing as it obviously will not help.

OK Will, I understand you. You are completely right & I am completely wrong. You reject any attempt for moderation on your part & I simply need to burn in hell.

Seems balanced & moderate to me. Not.

You state:
> In this case, the Edubase field for Establishment Type is set to 'Secure unit'

I cannot find a field for “Establishment Type”, but I *can* find a field for “School type” and *it* is set to ‘Secure units’.

You state:
> Edubase doesn't only contain schools

The header for EduBase says “Get information about schools”. The site URL is “get-information-schools.service.gov.uk”. Are you truly sure of your statements? Have you never heard of a school that is also a secure unit?

For the record, I am using EduBase, together with other sources, to add information that was missing from schools. Examples are telephone numbers, email addresses, street addresses, etc.. As always, I am checking the information to be accurate as best I can in a Lockdown situation where I cannot make an actual survey.

NG postcodes for schools are at better than 96% coverage. A *very* good job has been done in adding them. However, the info that most visitors would want to find has, in my experience, mostly been inadequate or entirely missing. I'm trying to use this moment in history to add all those in.

For the record, I have used the school's website as a source for the school address/contacts. I have reverted to using EduBase only when no website could be found. If you had ever asked you would know that.

I find your statements to be insulting and unreferenced. You would *never* allow me to "remove(d) a school because you could not find it in Edubase" without smacking me around the head for that fact. Also, I never knew that you were a mind-reader.

You cannot seem to find any politeness in your discourse. If you cannot at least find some professionalism & accuracy, then please stop posting.

Thank you for the information - very helpful. However, reverting the changes prior to any reference to me or gaining my input before doing so seems rather overbearing in attitude.

The reason for my name-change & amenity-change is, once again, the [government EduBase site](https://get-information-schools.service.gov.uk/Establishments/Establishment/Details/133119). That site:

1. Names the establishment as "Clayfield House" (notice: no 'S')
2. Describes it as a "school"

I do apologise profusely for the laxity displayed here by government or local-government clerks in making a mistake with the name, and also for my accepting that an establishment named by the government as a 'school' actually is a school, just a secure one. How foolish of me.

How about talking to me as if I am another human being, trying to do the best that he can, just like you. If you have surveyed the place personally then you likely know far more about it than I do. You could at the least discuss it with me & together we could try to work out what is likely to be the best route forward. Your attitude at the moment is most confrontational & likely to promote conflict. Why is that?

I respect your professionalism, the care that you take in your work & desire to get things right. I attempt to act in a similar fashion myself. What a damn shame that you are so quick to take offence & get butt-hurt at the least thing.

I'm all too aware of my ability to make mistakes; it appears to be the mark of being a human being. I do my best to be constantly open to discovering & admitting mistakes, because I want to improve.

Please be less offensive in your actions & statements. They do you a disgrace.

…and, just to show what the situation can be like:–

I came here to make the earlier addition because I was updating [Sawley Infant and Nursery School](https://www.sawleyinfantschool.co.uk/contact-details/). and saw that it had `addr:province=Derbyshire` (see also osm.org/relation/5869800).

A few minutes later I update the next-door [Sawley Junior School](https://www.sawleyjunior.co.uk/contact-details/) and (slap head) it has `addr:province=Nottinghamshire` in both own website + EduBase entry (see also osm.org/relation/5869801). I have used ‘Derbyshire’ for both!

My profound apologies, Will! I've managed to get the address wrong twice. How wonderful to find out what a pratt I am.

You wrote:

> In case you are not aware, Long Eaton is in Derbyshire,

I got the whole thing twisted and, when I found the address to be `addr:province=Nottinghamshire` thought that it had already been changed, instead of wrong. I've just changed it to 'Derbyshire'.

Once again for the record, I rarely put in my idea of what it should be, but find an authoritative source and use that instead. This recent example of a double-twist is one of the reasons why.

Hi Will

1. The Government official info for this school is found at [edubase=135074](https://get-information-schools.service.gov.uk/Establishments/Establishment/Details/135074). You will see that no school body is indicated other than Derbyshire CC, so I gave it that. If you can find the independent body on the school website (I looked but could not) then change it to that.
2. I was surprised as well, but I found (but cannot re-find) a contact page purely for that school on their gigantic website & it had 'Derbyshire' as the County. So, I went with that. Finally, I add the County part of the address for all PoI because otherwise a visitor will not know which county to add to addresses; the system may know which County every address is part of, but the system keeps that knowledge all to itself.

I went to change the County to 'Notts' just now but see that you have already changed it. Unless I did that myself (so many school changes, cannot recall).

Hi [Circeus](osm.org/user/Circeus)

It is about 10' (3m) tall and used to distribute power across a district. Street Cabinets are normally 1m (3') tall (max I've seen are 5' (1.5m) tall and normally are local distribution points for ISPs/telecom). Big difference.

It is the same size as [679095144](osm.org/way/679095144), if that helps.

Final thought: street cabinets only rarely have IDs written on the outside whilst sub-stations *always* have IDs on the outside. If street cabinets blow up it is difficult, if substations blow up it is bloody dangerous.

Ah! It is a guesstimate of *Chase Farm Housing Development* rather than 'Chase Farm'. Perhaps change the name rather than cause search conflicts?

Chase Farm has already been mapped by myself 2 years ago. There is zero reason to 'guesstimate' it

Whoops (and thanks). I've removed them in JOSM and they will be corrected on next uplift. They were intended for the Denbury relation and I clearly had a brain-fart and added them to the wrong relation (also now fixed and awaiting uplift).

> it's clearly more informative than what I can achieve not living in the area
I do not live in the area either, Jerry. Just like you, I have to travel there to map it. The difference, perhaps, is that I knock on the doors & talk to the folks that live in those terraces, rather than stand back & view them through the end of a telephoto lens. I then use the information that I obtain to map it in the best fashion that seems to apply, having referred first to the Wiki, & so on. Those terraces for which info is obtained I store within the map. Other, similar terraces where no-one answers the door have less info.

> OSM is fundamentally a collaborative project and it works at its best when we collectively use a common style of mapping things
So how come you spend your time accusing me of not doing things the way that *you* do it? If you actually believed your own words, then you would *ask* why I had mapped it that way, so that we can collaborate together to find the best way to map these terraces. Instead, you act with the attitude that *you* know how best to map these terraces & I do not. Such an attitude is high-handed & 'superior' (quote-marks as not necessarily accurate) & bound to cause aggravation & conflict. You need to fix this attitude, Jerry, as it rejects newcomers & is detrimental to the project as a whole.

> (different points of view) are best substantiated by widespread practice in OSM
The entire point is that there is NOT any “widespread practice” for these particular terraces. There is “widespread practice” for how-to map terraces. There is “widespread practice” for how-to map apartment blocks. There is zero practice for how-to map 2-level apartments built within lengths of 3-level terraces.

It is perfectly reasonable for you to point out that the flats appear rather narrow on the map. It is perfectly unreasonable for you to stomp all over what I've done, telling me that it is all wrong and should be mapped 'ideally this way' as if you are the authority on what is right. You are not the authority; there is zero established practice in mapping these particular buildings. Please start behaving like a collaborator rather than a foreman. It is more accurate to your position & you will get better results from those that you deal with, and particularly when dealing with crusty old men like me.

> We can do better.
I disagree. Mapping these terraces as an apartment block does NOT give an accurate display of the thickness of those flats. But that is not actually the point, is it? What it all boils down to is: I'm not doing it the way that you want. Well, tough. It seems to me to be the best way to map these particular buildings. The way that you suggest to use is wrong from my point of view. Now please: why not spend your time mapping rather than criticising *my* mapping?