Thanks Colin

Hi Colin,

osm.wiki/How_We_Map says:
"You do not have to ask permission before modifying existing data. If you believe that you can improve something, then do it."

If you don't like my changes, by all means change them - it's not Si's Street Map. However it's also not talk_gb's Street Map and I do not need permission from a clique to improve the map.

If the talk_gb mailing list decides on guidelines for the mapping of such entities (preferably documenting them on the wiki) then I will happily abide by those guidelines.

However, I'm interested in mapping, not debate and bureaucracy, and have absolute zero interest in joining said mailing list.

Anyway, to address your concerns about Community Boards being mapped:

1) OSM marks what's on the ground, not what's in law. They clearly exist de facto, even if de jure they haven't been created on a statutory basis.

2) Their elected government is the Bucks councillors doing a double shift (well not really a double shift, as most functions are Bucks' functions anyway).

3) I gave them a level 9 as they are between a district and a parish. Per the wiki (where I put links to all the relations I created on the Buckinghamshire page - to document them), level 9 wasn't being used. It struck me as a perfect fit, but feel free to disagree and change it.

In all seriousness, feel free to have a debate with your mates about my edits and then do as you see fit. You can even get them to discuss it here if you want me to be part of the discussion (I'll probably not take part in it).

Sincerely, Si

Just because there's legitimate reasons for commenting - which I accept was the case here, and have apologised for doubting the validity of - doesn't mean

1) I have to understand 'well known and popular OSM validating software' - and certainly doesn't mean I should be rudely accused of being illiterate because you didn't bother to explain the problem in plain English. Would writing "is Watford Vicarage Road station still under construction?" have been too hard? You wouldn't have even needed to insert the link!

2) that I haven't had weird and creepy comments on changesets in the past that aren't about corrections and have come from people stalking my edits. Your use of a tool I am unfamiliar with called 'OSM Deep History' instantly brought to mind those stalkery comments - digging up the past for inane comments.

Sorry, there's nothing on the map showing the line (it used to be a viaduct under construction), suggesting that it had all been fixed. I made a mistake in checking it was all fixed, but there's no need to be so rude about it.

Because I didn't see the unchanged nodes (nor did the person who changed the thing at the time of cancelation, nor anyone else in the last couple of years when it's been incorrect - clearly they are hard to spot), and you, instead of pointing them out as the specific thing that needed changing, linked to some weird OSM Deep History thing, I assumed that you were another creepy stalker looking through my past edits and then asking odd questions, like I've had in the past. Sorry about that.

No - they started construction and found it would be a lot more expensive than they thought so stopped.

I'm not sure why you are asking this here as OSM was edited to reflect that cancellation when it happens. It just seems a little bit weird to me - there's not like there's a correction to make related to the changeset or anything.

"Next time I won't" - good, because then you'll be acting courteously, and in good faith that:
1) you are competent
2) I hold to good faith and am not possessive about people changing what I've done when it's wrong
3) the government aren't totally stupid!

instead of abusing:
1) yourself by acting like you aren't competent enough (this is what I've found most abhorrent - your abuse of yourself in this matter)
2) me by sending me an unsolicited message highlighting out a stupid mistake of mine for no good reason but the bad faith one that I'm somehow need to give clearance for it to be changed or would be annoyed.

By asking you either are:

a) acting as if you don't deserve good faith with a superior attitude towards my mistake

or

b) showing bad faith in yourself that you are not competent enough to fix obvious mistakes, and bad faith in me that I'd be possessive about my edits being altered.

I went with you being smug, rather than stupid, because I assumed good faith in you only to lose it, rather than have none in the first place!

So, please try to have good faith next time - especially towards yourself!

Hi Colin, just wondering... why are you being all smart arse about it? Maybe you meant to just fix my mistake without coming off all superior...

@DaveF
Looking, it seems like the field that should be used (per the wiki, as opposed to what was used on the English areas that used this sort of tagging that I then copied) for the designation is 'protection_title' (though I think your idea is good - it's like 'x=construction', 'construction=*')
protection_title=*

I don't know why some aren't lower-case and with spaces not underscores - I may have accidentally done them, they may be legacy tags.

As far as I'm concerned, feel free to tag how you want, as long the data is there, preferably rendering...

I deleted the bit with better. I meant "change to the more generic, but better as well as more consistent with other similar protected areas".

A previous conversation on here suggested that boundary=national_park was a legacy tag and boundary=protected_area was now the UK norm for National Parks. I believe this was the last (in England at least) to change to the more generic tag, as well as more consistently to other similar protected areas.

I say better because the protect_class tag helps define what "National Park" (or whatever protected area the boundary represents) means. The UK's national parks have hardly any of the typical criteria (state land ownership, IUCN classification of I to III rather than the UK's level V) seen in other countries. As such, the added detail is useful as tag=national_park might be a little misleading.

No worries - it's only just happened.

thanks - that was a tiny little gap, no wonder it didn't work the times I checked to see if that was the issue!

I've put area=yes in, and it is still not showing up several hours later. Very strange indeed.

I've made those changes, lets see how it works. Presumably, protect_class=5 would also apply to national parks (the Lake District also would get protect_class=98 as a World Heritage Site), should they also be tagged this way.

There's no sensible way to tag AONBs differently to National Parks and get them to show up - this is something that's been unresolved for years.

What *is* already rendered is not what *was* rendered when I made the change. I made the change expecting to see the boundary, which didn't previously show, and low and behold it did!

There might have been a change in the rendering engine in the 599 days since I made the changes to make my edit now moot, but it wasn't moot then!

Because it wasn't showing, and so I copied what was working on the North Wessex Downs, or the Cotswolds (I can't remember exactly which as it's been over a year) wrt tagging.

The content on the link is now on multiple pages, accessed from https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Buckinghamshire_Council_(Class_III_roads)

The A5130 north of here wasn't part of my changeset. However, the SABRE thread is correct, AFAICS. MK Council's road department seem to be really bad at notifying of changes to classification - including making them on the ground unless they are actually replacing signs (eg H9 still signed as A421 for a lot of it, despite that route moving to H8 about 20 years ago).

OS now marks it as unclassified at 1:50k. Google Maps Streetview (because I can't site check, especially not 7 years ago) has the A5130 number removed from that road on signs at Kingston Roundabout between Oct '10 and July '12 and at between Oct '10 and Aug '12 at Northfield Roundabout. However signs along it don't seem to be changed, ditto pavement markings (ie numbers painted on the road). Certainly they don't want through traffic on it, and there's council minutes and plans and stuff talking about downgrading.