Hi Andy,

When I added the Y1 route information I certainly assumed the Langley Mill / Eastwood stretch was part of the same route as the Derby / Heanor section. It was surveyed by photographing the bus stops rather than using the bus.

I mostly added the Eastwood part of the route in 2015 and Heanor in early 2016. Yourbus do chop and change their routes a lot, so possibly things have changed since then. I will try to check next time I'm up that way.

Best Regards,
Will

Hi,

The address you added in this changeset appears to be a duplicate (Norfolk House, 47 Upper Parliament Street). It has previously been mapped here: osm.org/node/2955161228

Norfolk House is definitely located on the other side of Norfolk Place where the earlier node is placed: osm.org/way/85648964

Hi,

This edit looks problematic to me -

1. You have changed the name of the shop. How do you know this? You've made edits across the world in the last hour, so I doubt you have visited it.

2. You have changed the shop type to 'weapons'. Again how do you know this? It seems unlikely to me. Most army surplus stores (at least in the UK) primarily sell clothing and outdoor equipment.

3. Please use accurate changeset comments. No misspelled keys have been corrected here.

It had indeed reopened when I visited three weeks ago. I didn't notice that it had been tagged as motor_vehicle=no. The section to the west is now being reconstructed on a new alignment.

Hi, it's a mistake. I'll check my photos/notes this evening and correct it. Thanks for pointing it out.

Thanks.

Hi, in this changeset you have added a duplicate of Howitt Primary Community School. You added osm.org/way/442098027, while osm.org/relation/1669586 was already present.

Hi, you seem to have made various small changes in this edit. It would be really helpful to other mappers if you could provide changeset comments for this type of edit to give some idea about what was changed. Giving a source for the changes would also be appreciated.

I see you have added a double wall postbox, which is only a few metres from a previously mapped double pillar. The close proximity of these seems unusual. Please could you confirm this is something you have checked on the ground or otherwise explain which sources were used? Thanks.

The board_type key is quite confusing. It is used both to describe types of information board (history, wildlife, geology etc.) and notice boards (local notices, times of church services or parish meetings, etc.). These seem two separate things and I don't understand why they are in the same key. There is potential for ambiguity - how do I tag a church notice board? board_type=church might seem correct, but that would actually imply an information board about the church and not a board for attaching notices.

Therefore I presently use amenity=notice_board because the alternative is ambiguous and confusing.

No, it doesn't appear to make sense. I suspect I just forgot to remove it.

Looking at my photos, the address of the B&B as written on signs outside is '3 The Cliff', while the FHRS data gives it as '3-5 The Cliff'.

Hi, no problem, I've reverted the changes, so the road should now be shown again.

You made the edits using OpenMaps for iOS. I have never used that particular app, so I can't advise you on exactly what went wrong. The following page lists places where you can get help: osm.org/help

All addresses in Nottingham have been added by local volunteers, so which streets have addresses displayed just depends on whether or not someone has got around to going and surveying them.

Hello, welcome to OpenStreetMap. I see you have removed Southcliffe Road from the map. I suspect that might have been done unintentionally. Let me know if you need help fixing it.

In this edit I notice you have deleted the fhrs:id tag. Did you have a particular reason for doing that? The tag refers to the ID given by the Food Standards Agency as part of the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme. This covers most premises that serve or sell food in the UK. In Nottingham local contributors are actively adding these IDs to businesses. I hope you won't mind if I re-add the tag.

More generally, it is always great to see companies helping to maintain the data. OSM is a collaborative project though, so please consider that other contributors will sometimes wish to tag additional information.

I live in Broxtowe and the statement "Beeston *has* departed from Council control" makes absolutely no sense to me.
Why would I have been paying council tax to Broxtowe BC if the area isn't under their control?

Thank you for your contribution. However, please note that the convenience store you added is already mapped. See here: osm.org/node/2208037553

I see you have recently added other duplicate shops elsewhere. Please could you be more careful in checking that the shops you are adding aren't mapped already.

"Diamonds to a pig." - It's a shame you feel you have to keep insulting me personally. It's hardly conducive to discussing the points you've raised. Yes, I've critisied your tagging choices, but never you personally. Your behaviour is uncalled for.

I'm sorry you are unset by my suggestion to delete your relation. It was made in the genuine belief that what you added doesn't exist. It's become apparent that you strongly contest that point. My feeling now is that this is something that requires wider community discussion rather than action on my own account.

But aren't you overreacting here? I wasn't suggesting deleting hours of work. The relation in question has 13 constituent ways and two nodes which wouldn't be deleted. It's something that could be recreated in a few minutes (and probably in even less time by reverting or undeleting). You have clearly spent hours tidying the constituent ways and that's a valuable contribution, but they wouldn't be affected by anything I have suggested.

I find the tone of your reply unnecessarily personal. I want to be clear, I find it unpleasant and would like it to stop. I intend to stick firmly to the matter in hand in this reply.

1. Administrative boundaries define legally defined entities. There's little grey area here - something is either a civil parish or it isn't. The unparished areas are just voids between these legally defined entities.

2. I don't believe objects tagged in OSM should claim to be one thing, but then have an obscure secondary tag claiming to be something else. Here you are tagging something as a civil parish, but the designation tag then says hay-ho no it's not! How can you expect data users to know about your obscure designation tag? It isn't only me who objects to this, it's been discussed several times on the mailing lists over recent years. It's similar to now discredited tagging such as railway=station with end_date=1967 or shop=supermarket with proposed=yes. It's pretending to be something it isn't.

If I query a database loaded with OSM data to discover which admin areas a node lies within, I would expect it to return the legally defined administrative areas and not placeholders for areas which might exist in the future but currently don't. I expect most other data users would expect the same.

I wouldn't be wasting my time writing this if I didn't genuinely consider your tagging to be problematic. If you want to redefine the meaning of admin boundaries in OSM, then you need to discuss it with the community first and reach a consensus. Again, I request you discuss this with the community before continuing to add these areas.

In response to your changeset comment here, it's really not unreasonable to suggest deleting something which doesn't exist and it's unhelpful to describe it as a 'threat'. Why not try to be more constructive and recognise the legitimate concerns that others have over this?

I actually meant to add this to: osm.org/changeset/41419922