Hi,
I am not sure what your intent is with "Oakridge Park"... is it a kind of suburb or neighbourhood?
Apart from that, a boundary relation cannot have just an "inner" ring; it must have at lease one "outer" ring. Maybe you meant "outer" in this case?
Regards,
Colin

Hi Paul,
AFAIK Skelmersdale does not (yet) have a town council... An admin boundary relation is not appropriate in this case. If and when West Lancs Borough does a Community Governance Review and formally create the Civil Parish should this relation be created. My opinion is that this relation should be deleted at present.
Kind regards,
Colin Smale

Hi Jay,
Please revert the St -> Saint changes unless the signs (or other authoritative sources) actually say "Saint". The case of place/street names with "St" is explicitly covered in the Wiki...

osm.wiki/Names#Abbreviation_.28don.27t_do_it.29

Thanks!

Hi Jay,
Please revert the St -> Saint changes unless the signs (or other authoritative sources) actually say "Saint". The case of place/street names with "St" is explicitly covered in the Wiki...

osm.wiki/Names#Abbreviation_.28don.27t_do_it.29

Thanks!

Just had a look at OSSV in JOSM... If you zoom in a bit it looks clear to me that the boundaries from the Manchester shapefile do not blindly follow the centre line of Upper Chorlton Road, there are all kinds of wobbles... It's a bit difficult to quantify (OSSV does not represent the true width of the road) but going by the building outlines it looks like a couple of metres in many places.
Of course for electoral wards this is not normally an issue as the important thing is addresses and their inhabitants. But for highways authorities it may be different.... Who is responsible for that pothole? I would like to think that pragmatism reigns supreme in practice but with councils who knows how petty they can get?
Cheers,
Colin

Hi Rick,
That the boundary (appears) to follow the centre line or the road, makes it tempting to link the two; but the legal definition of the boundary these days is "the line on a map" which possibly has a historical link to the line of a road or watercourse at the time it was drawn, but the link is broken at the instant the act or S.I. is made to create the boundary. If the road or watercourse is subsequently altered, the boundary legally remains in its old location. The maps giving the legal definition are held by the (local) government concerned and OS are informed of any changes. So the one true source is (local) government and the OS is a very close second. In some cases (not necessarily in the UK) the boundary can be defined by descriptive text, like "following the centre line of the river" - in this case the boundary would move with changes in the river, but this is not the case with UK admin boundaries (AFAIK...). Frederiks comment suggests reusing the highway nodes only in these cases...
Re: the alignment: points from and authoritative source have to be considered accurate in terms of lat/lon (as they have been surveyed to centimetre accuracy and/or digitised from a very large scale map), whereas we all know that aerial imagery can be offset by many metres depending on the orthorectification process. So when we import a boundary from an official shapefile, as we are both doing, this geometry is IMHO more reliable than any imagery. I admit I have been looking at the Bing imagery, not OSSV...

Hi Rick, yes, it looks like the LGBCE data coincides with the OS data. There would be something wrong if it didn't!
Two comments about Upper Chorlton Rd: Firstly neither data set appears to put the boundary exactly on the centre line w.r.t. the Bing imagery. This is most likely an alignment problem with the imagery itself, but the road seems to align with the imagery - hence the boundary is actually now in the wrong place. Secondly it is "best practice" to use a separate way for boundaries and not reuse the highway way. The boundary should also normally have its own nodes as well. The reason for this, is that the legal boundary is the line on the map, and it is not linked to the centreline of the road. If a junction is rebuilt for example, changing the centreline, the boundary will not change with it, but remain in its old location until and unless it is changed by a formal process. Linking the boundary to the road in this way implies a correlation by definition, which is incorrect.

I have also retagged Whalley Range as boundary=political as it is an electoral ward, and not an administrative unit (civil parish or whatever) in line with OSM practice. Hope you are OK with this!

Thanks and regards,
Colin

Hi, I notice the boundary you entered diverges in several places from the OS data and I am wondering which version is more accurate... Can you point me at your source in LGBCE? Have there been any boundary changes in the area recently?
Thanks,
Colin

Hi,
I assume you didn't mean to delete the Church Stretton / Wistanstow CP boundary?

I am not sure what source you are using for these boundaries, but I kind of assume they are some kind of snapshot of administrative boundaries as they were at some point in the past. It is unlikely that there are any addresses in the foreshore area, let alone actual houses, so in practise it probably won't matter that much. But I would recommend picking a paradigm and sticking to it consistently across the whole country, and I suggest the MLWS paradigm is more in line with people's expectations although I have no evidence of that. Don't forget that coastlines/LWM change over time, so the current coastline/LWM may not be in the same place as it was at the time of the snapshot. Will you use the current coastline/LWM, or the map-contemporary historical coastline/LWM? Again, consistency and transparency is important here...
Are you using the OS Boundary-Line data for this, or have you got another source? It would be helpful to understand where you are "coming from" as it were.

Can I ask why you are putting the traditional boundary on the coastline (high water) instead of the more usual low water line? The jurisdiction of local authorities in the UK (England at least) extends to MLWS unless overridden by a specific act.

Can you be a bit less quick please? I am actively working on this area this evening and you are causing me extra work by giving me a moving target. Please wait a few hours at least before you jump in and fix things. Check the timestamps!
Thanks for your cooperation.

Hi,
I see you have deleted the place node and put the name on the residential area. This is not a good idea, because the boundary of the area called "Ramsbury" is not exactly equal to the extent of the residential area, which is what you are implying by this tagging. Using a simple node doesn't give any misleading information - it tells you explicitly that the extent is not defined. And by the way, you have impacted the parish boundary relation with this change, by removing the "admin_centre". I suggest you reverse this change.Thanks!

Hi... These boundaries are purely ceremonial, not administrative.... they shouldn't have (or need) admin_level=* as they have no administrative function. Their entire area is governed by Unitary Authorities (in this case they are technically Metropolitan Districts) and there is no "county council".

Adam, this relation is for the parish/town level and Bromsgrove does not have a town council so it cannot have an admin centre at that level. I will add it to the district level though, as it is missing there!

Please revert this change. Leave UK tagging and UK politics to the UK community.

NP...Revert done, in changeset #62321686. I left the population as that may well be right, I can't tell...

Hi,
I can see the vandalism you wanted to delete, but you have deleted the place node for the town of Brierfield instead of just fixing up the tagging! Would you consider reverting this and giving the town its name back?

Hi Keith, thanks for your reaction. I should have made it clearer in my first comment that it's the coastline that is the problem, not the riverbank. If you have tidied up the riverbank tagging, that's great, and thanks for that. But you have unilaterally adopted a different paradigm regarding the coastline in a tidal river.
Your coastline cuts across the mouth, whereas in most cases the convention in the UK is that the coastline continues to the tidal limit, which in this case is Totnes Wier. I know it is a bit of a controversial subject, but a change like this should really be discussed, especially when you are a visitor from another continent! The Dart is now out of step with other rivers in the area (check out the Tamar, Exe, Teign) although I admit Salcombe Harbour is also shorted. Whether your coastline edit is an "improvement" or not, is subjective...

The denomination should be Roman Catholic, as tagged in the node (which you deleted). Please be careful not to lose information!