Changeset: 41428333
Walking the Bounds, Broxtowe, Notts, UK (bring CPs into good order) (beeston + stapleford) (beeston formerly wrongly named as 'beeston & stapleford', which caused someone to threaten to delete it) (handbags at dawn)
Closed by alexkemp
Tags
created_by | JOSM/1.5 (10526 en_GB) |
---|---|
source | OS_BoundaryLines; OS OpenData StreetView; Bing |
Discussion
-
Comment from will_p
First, I regret you feel objections to your admin boundary changes are a personal attack. I have no wish to attack you personally. You do seem to be aware that the changes you are making are controversial. Therefore you really should have tried to find consensus before going ahead. If you don't seek consensus then other mappers are entitled to raise concerns. That should obviously be done in a polite manner.
Three mappers, including myself, have now stated they think administrative boundary mapping should be limited to official boundaries and not to indicate the absence of such a boundary. I really do think you should discuss this on the talk-gb mailing list before proceeding further. If you do carry on, it's not unreasonable for others to continue raising objections.
You use the old argument of mappers having their own territory and disliking others making changes. I actually think the Nottingham community is very welcoming to new mappers and people are largely left to get on with things. You have been mapping for a few months now, often interacting with my and other local mappers work and nobody has tried to stop you. Of course, if you make changes in areas I'm most familiar with, then I'm more likely to notice problems, and raise concerns. To me that's normal. OSM is a collaborative project, so it's actually a good thing for a mapper to monitor local changes and raise legitimate concerns. There is, of course, a balance to be struck between tolerating differences of opinion over tagging and different mapping interests while still challenging mapping when it's genuinely problematic.
To answer your specific points, the Nottinghamshire County Council map you cite makes no claim to be an official representation of civil parish boundaries. OS Boundary-Line is a far more reliable source and the questionable civil parishes you are adding are not present in that data set (or at least not present as civil parishes).
I really don't understand your point about contacting Broxtowe Borough Council. I have no disagreement whatsoever with the official boundaries. BBC are not claiming there is a civil parish called 'Beeston and Stapleford' or 'Beeston' - as far as I can tell only you are claiming that. I've lived variously in Beeston and Stapleford for a good part of my life, so have good knowledge where the boundary lies. Here we a talking about the official civil parish boundary, which is very clearly defined. People locally do consider areas outside that boundary to be part of Stapleford, but I don't see the relevance, because your changes only concern official administrative boundaries.
Of course, some sources will list names like 'Beeston (unparished)'. But that's just a label to differentiate it from parished areas, it's not an indication that an actual legally recognised administrative entity exists.
Finally, your comments might lead others to believe you have just added the civil parishes in Broxtowe, when in fact they have all been present in OSM for more than five years.
-
Comment from will_p
I actually meant to add this to: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41419922
-
Comment from will_p
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?
-
Comment from alexkemp
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 citizensIf 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.
-
Comment from will_p
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.
-
Comment from alexkemp
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).
-
Comment from will_p
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.
-
Comment from alexkemp
Hi Will.
A month ago I added https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/alexkemp/diary/39062 (Nottinghamshire Civil Parishes - names for unnamed areas) then a couple of days ago https://www.openstreetmap.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.
-
Comment from will_p
"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.
-
Comment from alexkemp
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. -
Comment from SomeoneElse
@alexkemp , Please tone the comments down a bit. Saying things like "Diamonds to a pig", "you punch me, I punch you back, often & hard" and "I trust my personal experience better than someone else's intellectual considerations" don't help to communicate your message; in fact they have the opposite effect.
Consensus is valued in OSM - if you've got three people saying "you're doing it wrong" it's usually an indication that at the very least you might want to step back and reconsider, or perhaps try and engage a wider community (perhaps via the talk-gb list).
Cheers,
Andy (wearing a DWG hat) -
Comment from alexkemp
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: http://www.openstreetmap.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. -
Comment from alexkemp
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
Relations (2)
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |