Why do this?

Hi Paul,
Although the boundaries are the same, they are two different entities. It is entirely possible (but rather unlikely) that the boundaries may diverge in the future. It's not about drawing the line on the map, it's about representing real-life objects.

Do the tracks you removed, not exist? Or are you trying to say they are private property? They should not be removed from the map just because they are private.

Hi! I notice you brought the admin boundary in line with the coastline in Rothesay harbour whereas before they were separate. The admin boundary should correspond to low water (technically MLWS) whereas the coastline corresponds to high water (technically MHWS). Ordnance Survey seems to think that parts of the harbour dry at low tide. One problem with aerial photography is that you don't know the state of the tide at that moment, so it's a bit difficult to judge the exact limits of the foreshore from them. Hence I prefer to trust the OS who periodically resurvey both limits accurately, from multiple sources. How would you feel about leaving low water and the admin boundary where the OS places them?

Hi, please note the admin centre of Hambleton CP has been put back to where it was (the place node) which is where it belongs....

Yes, I am working on it. I checked with the community first, by the way.

Yes, the regions are losing their boundary=administrative and admin_level=5 tagging.

You can change them all back again now, as the original edit was erroneous.

English regions have been abolished and never were administrative anyway. Admin level 6 is not appropriate here anyway. Please take care to check with local mappers first before making this kind of important change!

Too late, some else has already fixed it. I wanted you to do it... But please take note for the future.

Hi!
Please revert the admin_centre of Myddle & Broughton parish to the place node/333249053 . As per wiki and UK tagging conventions.... Thanks!

Oops! Sorry about that, I had a few crashes while I was doing this. I think it's OK now. I will check again in a couple of hours. Thanks for flagging it up!

Bedankt Leo, ik was inderdaad de haltevolgorde helemaal vergeten!

Yes, it would not be incorrect to remove the tag from the way completely. It is not my personal preference, as it is sometimes difficult to distinguish one line from another (in various editors) without this kind of "hint" though. There appears to be a kind of undocumented hierarchy, with "administrative" at the top, then "political", "historic" etc all the way down to "national_park"; the tradition is to tag the ways with the boundary type which is highest in the "hierarchy" of all the boundaries of which the way is a member.

boundary ways that are *only* for boundary=political relations should not be tagged as boundary=administrative.... better to set them to boundary=political

Thanks for spotting that, I have fixed it.

Thanks!

Hi... water=canal should be on a polygon enclosing the area covered by water, whereas waterway=canal goes on the centreline/fairway. Take a look at water=canal

Hi Will
Please remember that others may have different priorities to yourself. Comments like "I see no point..." are asking for trouble.....
Thanks

Your source, https://www.mapping.cityoflondon.gov.uk/ , doesn't appear to be accessible to the public. How do you get access to this resource?