Hi, welcome to OSM! Please don't add things to the name tag which are not the name of the thing in question. A boundary doesn't have a name. If you consider it appropriate you might use "description", but in this case it is totally redundant because the other tagging and its membership of parish boundary relations convey that information already. Would you please remove the "name" from this way? Thanks!

Hi Pascal, thanks but no need for the welcome, I have being doing OSM for years.
When working on UK admin boundaries I always preserve the relations where they already exist, but keeping the ways/nodes is totally impractical as the "old" versions are often wildly inaccurate because they were based on inaccurate sources and they need to be (re)segmented anyway to add the higher admin levels. Where an identical way (or part of a way) already exists, for example one I added in an adjoining changeset, I am careful to re-use that. If you want to discuss a specific way for example, I am open to dialogue.

Hi Chas, the private road you added actually duplicates an existing road. You should not add a new way in this case, but change the attributes (access=private for example) of the existing way, which you will need to split into two parts so the tags can be different.

Sorry Tomasz, you are simply wrong on this. Please admit it and move on. You are not going to redefine OSM's tagging like this, you need to discuss it in the tagging mailing list.

Hi, thanks for adding these places. When you add them to admin boundaries (civil parishes) could you please make sure you set the "role" to "admin_centre"?

You're welcome, and thanks for being a lot more reasonable about it than many people would be! I would recommend leaving the UK boundaries alone, as they are well-covered by data directly derived from the legal boundaries, which are not always "intuitive" but they are nonetheless correct! If you see something anomalous concerning UK boundaries feel free to contact me directly and I will do my best to explain or fix it up! Cheers, Colin

Hi Tommy... apparently not: https://richmond.gov.uk/lincoln_field_sports_pitches

Thanks for reverting, Tym. The boundary / relation looks fine to me.

political boundaries do not have an admin_level!!!!! please revert this. You are fiddling, probably with the best intentions, with things you clearly don't understand...

1. This is not an administrative boundary (it's the edge of a residential area); and 2. If it was, it would not be admin_level=8 (10 would be more likely).

I see your new boundary is based on a roughly-drawn "place" boundary which is not the same as an admin boundary (in the UK). Sorry, but the previous admin boundary actually looks correct.... would you revert this please? If you like we can look at it together if you are convinced there is a problem. Thanks!

This is the Republic of Ireland - my notes are for the UK! Please check your geography before armchair mapping....

Hi.... In what way was the previous boundary incomplete? Where did you get this boundary from? Yours doesn't align with surrounding boundaries, nor does it look very accurate. Any reason why I shouldn't revert this change?

Please be aware that "neighbourhoods" are locally defined by the council. Don't change OSM's current admin boundaries, as these are legally defined (unless you are certain you know what you are doing).

Hi Tomasz, as there doesn't seem to be any support for the existence of Swffyrd as an administrative entity I will delete this relation.

It's a community in the sense of people living together, but it is not a Community in the sense of the law and local government (which is the context for admin boundaries in OSM). Where did the exact line of the boundary come from? It is possible that is useful as a different object in OSM.

Hi Tomasz... With respect to Swffryd, there is no such admin boundary... What was your source for this? I am proposing to delete this relation, or possibly convert it to a place=village, depending on your source

I apologise, I need to contact the original mapper!

Please don't fiddle with admin boundaries. They are where they are, whether or not you think it should be otherwise. I have fixed this up twice already... And also, a more descriptive changeset comment, in English as you are editing in London, would be much appreciated! Thanks

There is no such admin boundary... What was your source for this? I am proposing to delete this relation, or possibly convert it to a place=village, depending on your source