please stop editing OSM until you understand what you are doing. I am recommending you for a block.

Er zitten in dit geval geen fouten in het kadaster. Eenvoudig gevalletje van een totale herbouw van een bedrijfspand, met een andere vorm, en nu gesplitst in twee verblijfseenheden. Wel valt mij nu op dat het pand-ID in het BAG hetzelfde is gebleven; het is fysiek echt een ander pand, en ik had verwacht dat het Kadaster een nieuw ID (met bouwjaar 2018/2019) hieraan zou toekennen. Blijkbaar zien ze dit als een verbouwing.....

Hi Sander, dit heb ik met opzet gedaan omdat het gebouw compleet gesloopt en herbouwd is. Zo is het jou ook opgevallen; mijn geschetste outline is nu vervangen met de juiste gegevens van de BAG. Mooi toch? Wat betreft de huisnummers, dit is vanaf de buitenkant niet te zien. Het gebouw is nu gesplitst - er zullen andere huisnummers nodig zijn. Als jij dat weet te regelen vanuit de BAG is dat perfect. Dank je wel!

Will you remove it as an admin boundary then? Instead, maybe a site relation would allow you to group the things together and flag it as an "extraterritorial office".

I can't find any evidence of the land actually forming part of Aberdeenshire, and I suspect it is simply part of Aberdeen City which is in use by Aberdeenshire Council, similar to the situation with an Embassy which is still part of the host country's sovereign territory. I am seriously wondering if this boundary should be tagged in this way. Can you offer any evidence that is should? Your boundary also includes the substation - is that really part of the area under discussion here?

You learn something every day! There is one other example of an extraterritorial council HQ that i know of - Surrey CC has its base in Kingston, which is in Greater London.
I wonder who empties their bins, and whether they pay council taxex to Aberdeen City?

Is this area really an administrative exclave of Aberdeenshire council embedded in Aberdeen City? Such situations are not unknown, but are extremely unusual. If it is an exclave, could please add a note to explain?

A "Parish Ward" in England is an optional subdivision of a Civil Parish, that returns one or more Parish Councillors. Not all Civil Parishes are "warded" in this way; some are just one big "ward" with the top X candidates being elected. A Civil Parish (which is a land area, not an administrative body) often shares boundaries with a District Ward. I believe all Districts (and Boroughs and Unitaries) are warded, but I may be wrong here.
In Scotland, all council areas are divided (by the Councils, not by the Scottish Government) into Communities, which may or may not have a council. These are analogous to the English civil parishes, albeit with more limited powers. The boundaries for the Scottish Communities are available as shapefiles from the Scottish Government (start here: https://data.gov.uk/dataset/1d488abe-f8e8-4ff0-b7b7-9c976b9bce64/community-council-boundaries-scotland ).
The Scottish Council ward boundaries, just for election purposes to the "big" council, are here ( http://www.lgbc-scotland.gov.uk/maps/4thelectoral/ ). This is (I assume) what you have been adding to OSM.
I hope this clarifies things a bit - get back to me if not! --colin

please tag electoral wards as boundary=political, political_division=ward and not as boundary=administrative, admin_level=10. The latter tagging is for community councils in Scotland. Electoral wards are not "administrative" in the OSM sense. Thanks!

Thanks John. The issue as I (and others) see it, is that the "place" as such doesn't have defined boundaries, and to infer that by tagging a polygon is misleading. The built-up areas, landuse=residential, is not correct because if you are in the park off Burge Cres/Graham Way, which is outside the residential polygon, but I am sure you would consider yourself "in" Cotford St Luke.

Hi John, why did you delete the place node for Cotford St Luke village?

Preferred by whom? The Town Council uses "Royal" in the full name of the council, but in just about all other references on their website they just use "Sutton Coldfield." So who else uses the "Royal" prefix on a regular basis?

Hi,
I notice you have followed the low-water line (admin boundary) and not the high-water line (coastline). I would have expected this relation to include the foreshore. Any thoughts?

I take it back, just read about the structure change. Sorry!

Why have you changed the boundary=administrative into boundary=historic? These appear to be current admin boundaries.

I think it would be better (and less work for you!) if you leave the OSBL boundaries in place. They are based on accurately surveyed lat/lon positions. Note that admin boundaries are a matter of law and don't move without an act of parliament or similar. What you have done is actually ruined the accurate boundary that was there before. Would you consider reverting these changes, and then adding your LEZ boundary without upsetting the OSBL data?
An accurate LEZ boundary (which does correspond to OSBL) is available from TfL: http://roads.data.tfl.gov.uk/boundaries/LEZ_Boundary_20071113_tab_shape.zip

Thanks!

Sorry, please ignore the above comment here, it was intended for a different changeset!

Hi,
May I enquire what your source is for this detailed LEZ boundary information? I notice it frequently deviates from the OS Boundary-Line alignment, just wondering which is more accurate.
I notice you leave the source of the boundary ways as OS Boundary Line when you do a "replace geometry" in JOSM. This is of course misleading as the alignment no longer corresponds to OSBL. It would be better to update it to reflect your source.

Hi,
May I enquire what your source is for this detailed LEZ boundary information? I notice it frequently deviates from the OS Boundary-Line alignment, just wondering which is more accurate.
I notice you leave the source of the boundary ways as OS Boundary Line when you do a "replace geometry" in JOSM. This is of course misleading as the alignment no longer corresponds to OSBL. It would be better to update it to reflect your source.

Hi, The Post Office (actually Royal Mail) hasn't used postal counties since 2013. They are tolerated in addresses, but add no significance. In any case they have never been "administrative" with a council and so on.... I would advise ignoring these postal counties as mere relics from the past.