Hi! Did you really mean to delete all those buildings? It would be helpful if you explained your rationale/sources in the changeset comments (instead of "a" which sounds a lot like "I can't be bothered")

An example is right there in Norbury - osm.org/relation/2234325

Hi! Electoral wards should not be tagged as boundary=administrative but boundary=political. See osm.wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dpolitical

Please do not change the admin boundaries. You have messed them up twice already today, and I have repaired the damage for you this time.

Hi! I was just wondering what the source of these neighbourhood names and boundaries was. Are they actually wards of SDC? You mention OS Boundary-Line; which data set exactly?

Admin/political boundaries should always be relations anyway, so even if the entire polygon was formed from a single closed way you would still put the effective tags on the relation, not on the way. Only enclaves can actually cause this - they are by definition the only cases where an area can legitimately be formed by a single way. Actually, conceptually the admin boundary relations represent the area, not the boundary; the difference is very subtle, but it is important here, as the name should go on the polygon, and not on its boundary.
Can you not configure Vespucci to flag only certain types of object (for example, highway or waterway) if there is no name present?

Hi! Why noname=yes?

please set the admin_centre of awbridge parish back to the place node. That's how it's always done, at least in the UK

Caution is still advised around Pestbosjes as nobody knows what is down there. However this island has been decontaminated and subsequently declared safe. If you agree that the tagging is inappropriate, I consider it inappropriate that you expect me to sort it out!

Hi,
According to Wikipedia, this area is no longer contaminated. I am not sure it is appropriate to tag it as a current hazard. Please consider adjusting your tagging to reflect that.
Thanks!
Colin

Hi,
Do you have a source for the change to the boundary of Calne and Calne Without? It looks like Wiltshire Council might be planning a review, but as far as I can see it hasn't happened yet. In that case the change you made is incorrect - will you revert it please? If the boundary really has been changed, please add the source into the tagging or changeset description. Thanks!
PS: For the avoidance of confusion, the legal boundaries of a parish council may or may not correspond to local perception of the boundaries of the place.

Hi! This is not a historic boundary, it is still current. Please change it back.

Hi Russ, thanks for the background. I think you are right, that the two sources should be consolidated. As long as it remains a user page it can not really be considered authoritative in any way - in its current location it is just a collection of personal notes. But it contains some well thought-out ideas, that deserve to be more out in the open instead of on a private notes page. Maybe we can encourage Robert Whittaker to propose his scheme to the community with a view to consolidating it into the wiki.
ICYMI I note he participated in a discussion on this subject in 2012: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Unclassified-Country-Road-UCR-td5710920.html

Regarding this specific tag, it seems it is used to encode 1) "maintainable at public expense" (i.e. present on the List of Streets) AND 2) unsurfaced and 3) not included on the Definitive Map (probably as a BOAT).

If it's really a public right of way, it will either be a public footpath or a byway. You might find some hints for tagging these here osm.wiki/Key:designation#Rights_of_way_in_England_and_Wales

Hi Russ,
What is "designation=unclassified_highway" intended to convey?

Thanks for responding and reverting. If you see the name appearing twice, in my experience it is sometimes/often due to some other polygon with a name, such as landuse=residential or place=village. A place (town, village, hamlet etc) is a different concept to administrative areas, so it is not necessarily wrong to have both in the data. As you mention it's definitely down to the cartographer to decide whether to use either or both. Does the "default renderer" actually do anything with the admin_centre information? I suspect not actually. In the mean time I would suggest that you might want to read up on "tagging for the renderer"... osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

Hi! What's the rationale behind removing the admin_centres for these relations? Adding a label is optional, but is often ignored by renderers. But why remove the admin_centre?

Hi Mikhail1412,
Please stop changing the admin boundaries in London, unless you are using a reliable source. I have asked you about this before but you did not reply. I am considering engaging the DWG if you continue with this, as you are not only making incorrect changes to the map, but also not willing to engage in a discussion to clarify your intentions.

Hi Jim,
Your comment implies you changed the tagging to make something visible. I can't tell whether the old or the new tagging is more appropriate in this case, but I thought I would make you aware of the OSM principle of not "tagging incorrectly for the renderer" - please refer to osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

Hi! What do the ref=* values on the rail tracks represent? Which authority issues and administers these?