I think you might find access=private a better fit. Access=no means nobody, at any time, under any circumstances. Are visitors allowed, without pre-arranging? If so, it may even be access=permissive.

Thanks for fixing!

Hi,
I think you may have confused an Admin Boundary with a footpath here. Under some circumstances it may be OK for them to share nodes (if they are linked by definition) but they should not share ways, even if they are co-linear, as they are different objects. I think you should draw a new line for this part of the trail.
way/876363323#map=19/52.95007/-3.90777

Because the boundaries are imported from professional surveys at cm-level accuracy. The boundaries are more correct than the imagery, which is known to be subject to georectification errors. Why are the waterways not aligned with the boundaries? They may be, by accident or design. The legal boundary is where the government say it is. As rivers meander or otherwise change course, the boundary may or may not automatically change with it. The legal boundaries sometimes get updated for this, but not frequently; nonetheless, the boundary is where it is. What does the waterway line represent in OSM anyway? Deepest channel? Slowest flow? Midway between the banks? Hence I keep the boundaries unlinked from the waterway when adding new boundaries or when there are significant updates.

Yes indeed, that would be appropriate, but it's a big IF. The boundaries of a "place" are notoriously fuzzy, and that's why they are mostly represented as nodes in OSM. A boundary implies that if you are on one side, you are unambiguously INSIDE that area, and if you take one step to cross that boundary, you are unambiguously OUTSIDE that area. With legally defined things it can be done, with postal addresses it becomes more controversial already as people don't always identify the location of their house with the place that Royal Mail think they should!
Be aware of the concept of "tagging for the renderer". This is about tweaking the tagging in order to produce a desired optical result on some map or other and is considered a heinous sin in OSM... osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

OK, it looks like the boundary you have used represents an electoral ward within Bradford. Electoral wards are not counted as administrative as they cannot have a council - they play no part in the government of the area other than for election purposes. We tag these areas as boundary=political without an admin_level. For more details, please refer to boundary=political

hi kevichella, what kind of thing is this Queensbury boundary? Is it a legal thing, like a parish council? Or is it just an area with a name? If the latter, it should be boundary=place not administrative

Hi, I have put the boundaries back to how they were. Please don't change them again without a verifiable source.

Hi,
Your updated boundary doesn't seem to correspond to the normal sources... Can you please explain the source you used for this change? Thanks!

I believe Overpass relies on Nominatim for geocode queries like this. Nominatim is not well-suited to the UK situation where there the admin boundaries and addresses live in parallel universes. The admin_level=10 boundary is strictly the boundary of the town council, which may or not correspond to a particular view of "Warwick" as a settlement. Could you use a different form of filter in Overpass? like this:
area[name="Warwick"][admin_level=10][https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary=administrative]->.warwick;
rel(pivot.warwick);
out geom;
If you want to experiment with the workings of nominatim, you might like to take a look at this: https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/details.html?osmtype=W&osmid=256062900&class=building - a reverse geocode of a building in the the centre of Warwick, so you can see what nominatim knows and what it uses.

Please revert this, it conflicts with tagging across the whole of the UK. The distinction you seek can be seen clearly in the tagging (admin=level, designation) so changing the name is unnecessary. Thanks!

Hi Dave, this is one of the dangers of people linking admin boundaries to other types of way. In this case it's a "centre line" of a waterway. The boundary is where it is, and the new data I added is far closer to being definitive than the old NPE-based data it replaced. The boundary hasn't moved, but the representation has been improved. On the other hand, what does the exact location of the line down the "middle" of a waterway actually represent? Who knows. Half the time it is simply drawn in by hand using imagery and located roughly between the two banks. I take your point about the way history (although the waterway relations can help to reconstruct older situations) but I can't see a better way to do it. Keeping the way ID and moving all the nodes?

Hi Mikhail,
I will ask you once again... Can you please stop changing the admin boundaries? They are based on an authoritative source and are legally correct, even if they don't look right to you. And would you please use English for your changesets when you are working in the UK? Thanks!
Привет Михаил,
Спрошу еще раз ... Не могли бы вы прекратить менять границы админки? Они основаны на авторитетном источнике и юридически верны, даже если вам они не кажутся подходящими. И не могли бы вы использовать английский для своих наборов изменений, когда вы работаете в Великобритании? Спасибо!

Hi Mikhail,
Can you please stop changing the admin boundaries? They are based on an authoritative source and are legally correct, even if they don't look right to you. And would you please use English for your changesets when you are working in the UK? Thanks!

Hi Alex,
Just a quick pointer: wards are boundary=political, and boundary ways not shared with true admin boundaries should be tagged as boundary=political and not boundary=administrative.

No insult intended, I accept that you intended to improve the data. i am busy with other things on OSM and it is not my "job" to notice every error. But you are armchair mapping from hundreds of kilometers away in a way that leaves the data in a worse state (what was the alternative solution in your 50-50 consideration, and why did you discard it?). Remember the wikipedia:xx tag might be deprecated now, but it was accepted once and is still widespread. If you are going to fix it, fix it right.

It's a shame you treated it like a bot doing a mechanical edit, deleting tags because you read something in the wiki and not thinking about the tag contents. A proper correction would have been to remove the link to the article about the border and replace it with the article about the country (which was linked under :en and :cy). I suspect you are more interested in suppressing the warnings than you are in the correctness of the data.

hi... can you explain what you did here, and how it "corrected" the "wikipedia notation"? As far as I can see you deleted the (correct) entries for :en and :cy, but left the (incorrect) entry alone (it is incorrect because it points to the "England-Wales border" but it should of course point to the entry for the country of Wales)

hi jimmy, your edit left the boundary in an incomplete state. I have repaired it according to OS Boundary Line information... If you still consider it to be wrong, would you please get in touch? Thanks.

Thanks!