Why did you remove natural=coastline on all the islets? According to OS at least two of them are above MHWS (almost always above sea level) and so qualify as coastline.

I would also suggest that their mandates are markedly "inferior" to parish and town councils, and admin_level=11 would be more appropriate in order to keep that distinction.

Hi... I would respectfully like to challenge your analysis. Charter Trustees have no administrative role (other than selecting a figurehead mayor), and spend almost all of their budget on their own staff and meetings. BCPs own website even says they are non-statutory. The Trustees themselves are not elected to that role - they only become Charter Trustees ex-officio as they are elected BCP councillors for those areas. The mayors are similarly not elected to that office, but are selected by the Trustees from among themselves.
I am therefore not convinced that they qualify as an independent "layer of government."

Yes, all fixed now. Thanks for the pointer.

I disagree with Mario here. A CA is an admin boundary in OSM. All the other CAs have been admin_level=5 for a long time.

Sorry, you are wrong. Combined Authorities are Administrative as they are created by legislation and governed by democratic principles including elections for certain functions. Please revert.

Hi Trevor,
Can you tell me what your source is for this edit? The boundary is now deviating significantly from OS surveyed data around the southern end of Blackfriars Bridge.

Hi, I think this was when I was having connectivity problems at my end. I have no idea how the MK change ended up in this changeset - you are right, it is unconnected to the NL changes. I guess I forgot to start a new changeset when switching focus. I'm not sure what you mean by proposing to delete "it", but as far as I am concerned the specific change to the way you mention is a correct change, but I will recheck it.
Sorry for the botch, and thanks for bringing it to my attention!
Cheers,
Colin

changeset comment seems to refer to a different area completely...

Thanks!

Why are you removing these tags from these premises? Are these buildings now empty?

Please fix it in ALL of these changesets

I think you have spelled Millennium wrong... Can you fix it please?

Hi! I see that this boundary change doesn't take administrative effect until April 2025 so I think your changeset is somewhat premature. I propose to revert the Eastfield boundary to its current line, and update it again in April 2025, when the updated boundary will have its new GSS code. https://edemocracy.northyorks.gov.uk/documents/s33564/Final%20Recommendations%20on%20the%20CGRs%20for%20Harrogate%20and%20Scarborough.pdf

Hi,
Can you please add meaningful changeset comments? See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments for more information. Thanks!

Hi! Can you please remember to use barrier=fence and not boundary=fence? Thanks!

The coastline segments you are removing were surveyed as MHWM by the OS, which is the usual basis for the coastline in OSM. Of course having all tidal rivers as "coastline" is not convenient, but the MHW limits can be easily converted to waterway=river polygons which are likely to be more reliable than any aerial photos. How about reusing the surveyed limits instead of tracing from the aerials?

What was the "issue" with the admin boundary? On the coast it should align with the official mean low water line.

Please use barrier=fence instead of boundary=fence. It's not the boundary of the fence is it?

The status of Sealand is rather controversial. Can you give some more information about your sources? Where does your local knowledge come from?
One other thing, the role of this boundary way in the United Kingdom relation should be "inner" not "outer".