the way in question is osm.org/way/241166508

Why did you change a long segment of an admin boundary to highway=path? Was this intentional? If so, can you explain? If not, please change it back

did you perhaps mean to connect the new cycleway to the road (st aelreds mews)? terminating it at an admin boundary is almost certainly not right

Absolutely sure. You should check these things before you edit. It is a Crown Dependency of the UK, but it is not part of the UK.

Are you sure your new boundary is correct? I agree that the previous alignment was rather unusual, but it may actually have been correct. Do you have evidence that it was not correct?

Why did you change these boundaries to admin_level=4? The Isle of Man is not part of the United Kingdom, and its boundary should be admin_level=2.

You might have spelt Grammar correctly...

Can I ask how you know these areas are above MHW? If they are submerged at high tide, they are not "coastline", and if they are not, this change loses the original value of natural=bare_rock so it would be better to create a second, co-linear way (sharing nodes) for the coastline.

Hi Robert, you should not have to tag level=0 as it is the default... Is there a specific problem you trying to fix?

Looks good, thanks!

I think you should revert the changes to the Barnstaple/Goodleigh boundary. Aerial photography is known to frequently be poorly aligned, whereas the OS boundary data is known to be pretty accurate. Sometimes boundaries can be really fickle; they don't always get changed administratively when roads etc are realigned. The law's the law, and the boundary is where the relevant Act or Statutory Instrument says it is.

In this case it would appear that the boundaries DO go through the buildings (it happens more often than you think). IMHO the legally authoritative boundaries should be restored, despite the anomalous bisection of the buildings... IS Boundary-Line data is derived directly from the definitive geometry, even if it does seem weird. To move the boundaries, legal processes must be followed which in this case would be a Community Governance Review by Mid Devon Council.

Hi! I saw your adjustment to the civil parish boundary between Zeal Monachorum and Bow. Has the boundary actually changed? Or have you just moved the line in OSM to avoid the buildings?

Hi Mex, As far as I can see OSM is up-to-date with the latest Community Governance Review decisions. I looked at the legal evidence on internet I have to conclude that the map from your link, when viewing Parish boundaries, appears to be wrong. If you can supply any evidence to corroborate this map, I would be happy to research it and correct as required. You might ask ABC's GIS department?

Can you point out what part of the boundary is incorrect? It is aligned with the official boundary published through OS Boundary Line and the map of Kingsnorth CP published by ABC seems to confirm... https://www.ashford.gov.uk/media/7966/kingsnorth.pdf

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?