Hi! Boundaries don't have names as such - but you could add this text as a description or a note if you like. Can you please update your edits?

Found the map your mean. The boundary is not identical to the old OS map from the Weybridge Society's website - look for example at the extreme south where it follows the A3. The north-south bit of the "settlement" boundary seems to be a bit to the east of the old map, following the B365. It looks like these eight "Settlement Areas" are basically subdivisions of Elmbridge for planning purposes. I am really not sure how these can best be tagged. Certainly not as boundary=administrative as they have no "council". But as to whether these boundaries mean anything to the average local, I doubt.

Hi, a bit of a discussion has blown up about the town boundaries, specifically Weybridge. ( relation/9274277 ) Can you say what source you used to create that boundary, i.e. what it actually represents? Thanks!

If might be worth asking LivingWithDragons where they got their boundaries from... A boundary representing the KT13 postcode area could be added, but you can't name it "Weybridge" as Royal Mail could change the boundaries or the postcode at any time. is the boundary you have in mind well-defined and verifiable by the general public? Can you point to where the boundary is, and say if you are on this side you are IN "Weybridge" but if you take one step you are OUT of "Weybridge?" Would someone living around Silvermere or Red Hill (down in the deep south) say they are in Weybridge? In any case the boundary should not have an admin_level as it is not administrative in any way.

You (and the Society) should start by answering the question "what is Weybridge?" Is it a built-up area? Is it the area of a town council (no, because there isn't one)? Is it the area where Royal Mail use "Weybridge" as the post town? It may be all of these things, and more... but the different versions of Weybridge may have different boundaries. The map the Society references appears rather old. I would suggest that this is not so much a current boundary as an historical boundary.

Thanks for the plan... I am not sure it is actually usable though... Firstly it appears to be just a subdivision of the redevelopment area - is this area referenced in any other context by the same name? Secondly, the document is copyright with no sign (that I could see) of any licence conditions. Did you check with the council that you can use and republish their data in this way? Licensing problems are one of the biggest issues in OSM. It is taken very seriously because it can get us into a lot of trouble - legally, financially and reputational.

Which means it is using nominatim. Please take note of the comments from me and others..... You asked for advice regarding the searches, and now you have it.

As cebderby has already requested, please provide a verifiable source for this boundary. Also, a place cannot have an address so please remove addr:city from Moorfoot

Please provide a verifiable source for the boundary. If the search engine you are using (nominatim?) is not returning the results you expect, you should raise a ticket there instead of fiddling with the data...

Hi, welcome to OSM.... Are you aware that you have deleted whole chunks of the Oswestry town council boundary? Please be careful, especially when deleting other people's work. I will fix the boundary but I cannot check the rest of your edits.

Hi,
What's the rationale behind layer=-1 on a long stretch of the River Waveney? Normally this is used for z-ordering around bridges, tunnels etc. Did you intend to apply this just to a short section where it goes under a road?
way/65620327#map=15/52.4639/1.4667

Hi Mario,
You cannot change the fact that the city and community are two different entities. If the entries in Wikidata/Wikipedia are screwed up then it needs to be sorted out there instead of propagating the error into OSM.

Hi Mario,
You cannot change the fact that the town and civil parish are two different entities. If the entries in Wikidata/Wikipedia are screwed up then it needs to be sorted out there instead of propagating the error into OSM.

Hi, and welcome to OSM!
The node for Crownhill should not be a "member" of the MK relation. Its relationship to the Borough (boundary) is implicit by its location. Can you please remove it again? Thanks!

If you are not sure what is correct here, wouldn't it be better to flag it up with a fixme or a note on the map, so people who do know can do the right thing? Just a thought.
Regards,
Colin

I agree with lakedistrict, you need to change this back...

I agree with Phil, you need to change this back.

I found a shapefile here, that seems to indicate it should align with LWM: https://lle.gov.wales/catalogue/item/NationalParks/?lang=en

Hi! Yes, it should be a relation (type=boundary, boundary=political, electoral_division=ward) and share ways (boundary segments) where appropriate (adjoining areas, other co-linear boundaries).

Oops, sorry about that. I have fixed the NP boundary. By the way, I notice it jumps around from the low-water line (admin boundary) to the high-water line (coastline). Any idea which would be correct, for the jurisdiction of a National Park?