Hi Russ,
What is "designation=unclassified_highway" intended to convey?

Thanks for responding and reverting. If you see the name appearing twice, in my experience it is sometimes/often due to some other polygon with a name, such as landuse=residential or place=village. A place (town, village, hamlet etc) is a different concept to administrative areas, so it is not necessarily wrong to have both in the data. As you mention it's definitely down to the cartographer to decide whether to use either or both. Does the "default renderer" actually do anything with the admin_centre information? I suspect not actually. In the mean time I would suggest that you might want to read up on "tagging for the renderer"... osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

Hi! What's the rationale behind removing the admin_centres for these relations? Adding a label is optional, but is often ignored by renderers. But why remove the admin_centre?

Hi Mikhail1412,
Please stop changing the admin boundaries in London, unless you are using a reliable source. I have asked you about this before but you did not reply. I am considering engaging the DWG if you continue with this, as you are not only making incorrect changes to the map, but also not willing to engage in a discussion to clarify your intentions.

Hi Jim,
Your comment implies you changed the tagging to make something visible. I can't tell whether the old or the new tagging is more appropriate in this case, but I thought I would make you aware of the OSM principle of not "tagging incorrectly for the renderer" - please refer to osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

Hi! What do the ref=* values on the rail tracks represent? Which authority issues and administers these?

just a quick comment... please note that parish and other council boundaries (boundary=administrative) are defined by law, and the OS data is pretty much by definition correct. Suburbs are a different concept, and the boundaries tend to be fuzzy on occasions. So please carry on with the suburbs, but don't "fiddle" with the admin boundaries unless you have a source at least as good as the OS! Thanks

Sounds almost right, except there is no precedent for adding "place" objects to admin boundaries. Places often tend to have fuzzy boundaries and are not part of the administrative hierarchy. I understand you are looking to fill in the hole in the parished areas, but that would be done geometrically by the E43 unparished area. Unparished areas are just fillers, they don't have names; If the boundaries are co-linear with the boundaries of a "place" then there are still two objects.
As you have seen there is already a polygon representing the "place" of Margate (relation/9355762). If you want to have an object representing the unparished area as well, as you have done by relation/12216178, that's fine, and a case can be made for including it as a subarea of TDC. I would suggest changing the designation to unparished_area though as I believe there are quite a few of these around already.
Regards, Colin

Hi Jay.... we don't use boundary=administrative (and admin_level) for unparished areas because there is (and can be) no "administration" by definition. By the same token it can't have an "admin_centre." Boundary=place might be appropriate in some cases though - but not here I think because I suspect not everywhere in the polygon will identify as being "in Margate." I will leave that last point to the locals...
Regards, Colin

Long time ago! This relation represents the legal definition of the Civil Parish, i.e. not the village, and also not the parish council (which is shared with Sarre). Not many people reference a CP as an object in its own right, but they consider it a synonym for the parish council. The orthography in the OS data about the parishes (not the councils) in this case is with spaces, not hyphens; as that data is derived from the "legal sources" I consider it personally to be the correct way of labelling the parish. However there are many inconsistencies across the country on this point so I am not going to "fight" about it!
Regards,
Colin

Thanks @SK53, you learn something every day!

what are "Knepp Wildland" an "Southern Block"? Perhaps you can add some tags to clarify.

Hi jose... why did you delete these buildings? What is the source of your knowledge that they no longer exist?

It has been brought to the attention of the UK community via the talk-gb mailing list

Hi,
I think you have caused a few problems here. You have deleted many things and broken structures like admin boundaries. I suggest you revert these changes and try again more carefully, remembering that the OSM map is for everyone. If you need any help please ask, here, or on a mailing list (I suggest talk-gb for this). Thanks!
Regards,
Colin

Hi Alex, I can't find the slightest indication that a boundary change is under consideration around Honeysuckle Road. It looks like it will be remaining a bit of an anomaly. Confirmation that it is currently in NE Derbyshire is here: https://checkmypostcode.uk/s410qh

Hi Craig...My instinct says that government surveyors have probably been on site at some stage with sub-cm-level accuracy equipment, and the coordinates of the nodes have been transformed mathematically to the locations you see now in OSM. I appreciate you know a lot more about aerial photography than I do, but we are regularly warned that, despite very clever orthorectification, satellite imagery can be very inaccurate. In this case we are not talking about the odd metre or two, but a discrepancy of 100-200m (rough guess) which is a bit more serious. It's possible that the imagery is right, and the OS are using an old, bad survey I suppose. If you leave your line in its current position, you should certainly update the source=* tag though.
One other comment: this is an admin boundary (not coastline) which (in the UK) should correspond to MLWS. We have no idea of the state of the tide at the moment the images were taken, therefore it is impossible to say the boundary is exactly where it appears to be on the photo. The same goes for the coastline, normally taken as MHWS. In this case the OS show the admin boundary and MHWS as coincident, which usually means very steep cliffs, which is very possible on this rocky outcrop. It may also mean that it hasn't been surveyed properly...
Regards, Colin

What does "Possible Access only" mean, and is it really the name (and not a description)?

Hi... What's your source for the admin boundary around Sule Stack, and why is it better than the "official" line surveyed by Ordnance Survey? As you will understand the data of the state survey agency is likely more reliable than aerial photography, especially up there in Orkney.

I think access=private would be better here. See access=private