please revert this change. a little research would have shown that there are relations for the historical boundaries (retagged after the creation of BCP) which you have now broken. I agree that the tagging of the ways should not be boundary=administrative, but that is not a reason to delete the way.

please revert this change, for the following reasons: 1) the OS data is surveyed at a much higher accuracy than any simple aerial image; 2) you have conflated coastline and admin boundaries which are conceptually NOT the same - in simple terms, one is high water, one is low water and 3) there is no way of knowing the state of the tide at the moment the aerial images were made.
Thanks.

Yeah, but the fact remains they are not a layer of local government. The neighbourhood planning areas are only loosely based on parishes, and don't replace CPs or introduce any layer of government into unparished areas. They don't change who the planning authority is. I wouldn't expect to see a boundary=administrative springing up for every case where government draws a line, like CCGs or Fire and Rescue. IMHO they are different types of boundary, just like the neighbourhood plan areas and development corporations should be. They don't fit into the (more or less) neat hierarchy of admin areas and should have their own top-level boundary type, possibly boundary=town_planning or boundary=zoning.

Hi Andrew, 2 questions: Firstly you seem to have created two copies of this relation, the other one here changeset/80156012#map=14/51.5405/-0.0166
Secondly, I don't think making this an admin boundary is appropriate, as there is no local government with an elected representation. It's a quango whose leadership is appointed (in this case by the Mayor).

Hi, according to the wiki page you cite, area=yes is only required for relations which are not type=boundary. So your changes seem to be redundant...

the way in question is way/241166508

Why did you change a long segment of an admin boundary to highway=path? Was this intentional? If so, can you explain? If not, please change it back

did you perhaps mean to connect the new cycleway to the road (st aelreds mews)? terminating it at an admin boundary is almost certainly not right

Absolutely sure. You should check these things before you edit. It is a Crown Dependency of the UK, but it is not part of the UK.

Are you sure your new boundary is correct? I agree that the previous alignment was rather unusual, but it may actually have been correct. Do you have evidence that it was not correct?

Why did you change these boundaries to admin_level=4? The Isle of Man is not part of the United Kingdom, and its boundary should be admin_level=2.

You might have spelt Grammar correctly...

Can I ask how you know these areas are above MHW? If they are submerged at high tide, they are not "coastline", and if they are not, this change loses the original value of natural=bare_rock so it would be better to create a second, co-linear way (sharing nodes) for the coastline.

Hi Robert, you should not have to tag level=0 as it is the default... Is there a specific problem you trying to fix?

Looks good, thanks!

I think you should revert the changes to the Barnstaple/Goodleigh boundary. Aerial photography is known to frequently be poorly aligned, whereas the OS boundary data is known to be pretty accurate. Sometimes boundaries can be really fickle; they don't always get changed administratively when roads etc are realigned. The law's the law, and the boundary is where the relevant Act or Statutory Instrument says it is.

In this case it would appear that the boundaries DO go through the buildings (it happens more often than you think). IMHO the legally authoritative boundaries should be restored, despite the anomalous bisection of the buildings... IS Boundary-Line data is derived directly from the definitive geometry, even if it does seem weird. To move the boundaries, legal processes must be followed which in this case would be a Community Governance Review by Mid Devon Council.

Hi! I saw your adjustment to the civil parish boundary between Zeal Monachorum and Bow. Has the boundary actually changed? Or have you just moved the line in OSM to avoid the buildings?

Hi Mex, As far as I can see OSM is up-to-date with the latest Community Governance Review decisions. I looked at the legal evidence on internet I have to conclude that the map from your link, when viewing Parish boundaries, appears to be wrong. If you can supply any evidence to corroborate this map, I would be happy to research it and correct as required. You might ask ABC's GIS department?

Can you point out what part of the boundary is incorrect? It is aligned with the official boundary published through OS Boundary Line and the map of Kingsnorth CP published by ABC seems to confirm... https://www.ashford.gov.uk/media/7966/kingsnorth.pdf