I found this, which doesn't seem to correspond: https://www.surreyheath.gov.uk/residents/planning/planning-policy/planning-and-supplementary-planning-documents/deepcut-developme-0
Have you got a link to the source of your boundary? Interestingly the future contour of Deepcut straddles the border with Guildford - I wonder how they coordinate in this case.

boundary=place would be preferable here, unless this boundary *defines* a ward or other official subdivision.

No worries Chris, I will fix it for you (this time!). Reverting changes is always a bit messy. JOSM has a plugin to assist with reverting a changeset, but there is a bit of a learning curve. In this almost trivial case there may be an easier route using Potlatch V1 which can expose deleted objects. Regards, Colin

please resurrect the place node for Corsham osm.org/node/272642178 and add it back to the admin boundary. be careful when deleting things - you need to be 110% certain it is not being used!

Why did you delete the bus stops on Chertsey Rd? An explanation would be good.

I think the wikidata link is incorrect here. You have defined a small suburb Парка Раеса and linked it to the wikidata for the whole city of Dobrich.

Why did you remove the wikidata tag from St james Catholic Primary school? What's wrong with it?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/82438029

St Margarets is significant enough to be a suburb, not a neighbourhood, Why did you change it?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/82438308

Hi... As Middlesex no longer exists as a government entity, this building cannot be its County Hall. Normally historical data is not recorded in OSM, and if it is, it needs to be made clear in the tagging that it is no longer current.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/82438836

No problem at all, all sorted. Please be careful when deleting things as they may be used in unexpected ways in relations!
Best regards, Colin

Hi Jonny, the "easy" way is to use JOSM with the "reverter" plugin, but that likes to work at the level of a whole changeset. Alternatively "Potlatch 1" is also able to "undelete" objects. I don't mind doing it this time to help out, as both of the methods I mentioned have a bit of a learning curve which would be a bit out of proportion for just one node!
--colin

Hi! Please restore the place node for Chalvington. The boundary relation for the civil parish requires a node as the "admin centre" (the wiki does not allow a polygon). Almost all admin boundaries in the UK have a node as an admin_centre. Additionally, it is highly discutable whether it is correct to name the "built-up area" as you have. One cannot say authoritatively that a point 1m outside this boundary is "not in Chalvington."

Unfortunately you haven't corrected anything, you only made the error message go away; you have not made the admin boundaries correct. That's the danger of armchair mapping - you didn't know which boundary was correct so you removed one. It was the wrong one.

Hi Tom, I suspect you are right, but I was not the one who entered that name, and I am not local to the area so I cannot check. Are you able to verify the name?

please revert this change, for the following reasons: 1) the OS data is surveyed at a much higher accuracy than any simple aerial image; 2) you have conflated coastline and admin boundaries which are conceptually NOT the same - in simple terms, one is high water, one is low water and 3) there is no way of knowing the state of the tide at the moment the aerial images were made.
Thanks.

please revert this change. a little research would have shown that there are relations for the historical boundaries (retagged after the creation of BCP) which you have now broken. I agree that the tagging of the ways should not be boundary=administrative, but that is not a reason to delete the way.

please revert this change, for the following reasons: 1) the OS data is surveyed at a much higher accuracy than any simple aerial image; 2) you have conflated coastline and admin boundaries which are conceptually NOT the same - in simple terms, one is high water, one is low water and 3) there is no way of knowing the state of the tide at the moment the aerial images were made.
Thanks.

Yeah, but the fact remains they are not a layer of local government. The neighbourhood planning areas are only loosely based on parishes, and don't replace CPs or introduce any layer of government into unparished areas. They don't change who the planning authority is. I wouldn't expect to see a boundary=administrative springing up for every case where government draws a line, like CCGs or Fire and Rescue. IMHO they are different types of boundary, just like the neighbourhood plan areas and development corporations should be. They don't fit into the (more or less) neat hierarchy of admin areas and should have their own top-level boundary type, possibly boundary=town_planning or boundary=zoning.

Hi Andrew, 2 questions: Firstly you seem to have created two copies of this relation, the other one here osm.org/changeset/80156012#map=14/51.5405/-0.0166
Secondly, I don't think making this an admin boundary is appropriate, as there is no local government with an elected representation. It's a quango whose leadership is appointed (in this case by the Mayor).

Hi, according to the wiki page you cite, area=yes is only required for relations which are not type=boundary. So your changes seem to be redundant...