alexkemp (2016-08-13 15:57:14+00:00): 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.