Also, I think the CA should have its own, new relation; it is intrinsically a different object to the former county council, despite the similarities in terms of boundaries. Shouldn't York be included in the CA as well, as a "non-constituent council" that has representation in the committees etc?

Has there been any discussion, and is there any consensus, about the tagging of CAs? In particular the use of admin_level=6 might be problematic in other cases where the constituent councils are unitary authorities, which are also tagged with admin_level=6. Possibly admin_level=5 might be more appropriate for CAs? It was formerly used for regions but I don't think they have any admin functions now so they should possibly be converted to boundary=statistical?

Hi... Just FYI, this changeset deleted a large number of relations including many admin boundaries. I assume that was a mistake... Another user has already reverted these deletions, but I recommend you try to prevent this kind of damage in the future!

OK I see. They may be coterminous with the civil parishes (admin_level=10) but they are different objects, which also have a legal "subarea" relationship to the same parent. It's not about "suitability" (which sounds a bit subjective) but a matter of a defined relationship. I think you have misunderstood the UK system...

Which relations exactly did you remove from Dover district? They may have been legitimate subareas. What were they "duplicating"?

Please leave admin boundaries alone, you cannot judge that from imagery. What's "node rationalisation"?

Following the discussion in the mailing list I have made Rockall part of the UK again.

Hi, Could you please discuss this in talk-gb? Anything that impacts the national border of the UK is potentially controversial and you should get consensus with the local community before making these changes. Thanks!

Hi, thanks for getting back to us. To post you have to sign up to the mailing list first, here: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Cheers,
Colin

I've put the question out there on the mailing list. Please join in.
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2020-June/024601.html

As this change could be regarded as controversial (as it involves national boundaries) could I ask that you raise it in a discussion forum such as the talk-gb mailing list?

surely rockall does not have an eez of its own, but it is within the uk's eez. are you not talking about the territorial claim and dispute with ireland? The EEZ limit is represented separately in OSM, and I don't think it is correct to remove Rockall from the UK's administrative jurisdiction, whatever the consequences of UNCLOS.
If you would like to treat Rockall as a disputed territory, we have a process for that which needs to be followed.

Why did you remove Rockall from the admin relation? Rockall is allegedly administratively part of the Western Isles according to Wikipedia... Do you have a more authoritative source?

Hi,
What criteria did you use for this change from Island to rock?

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