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 osm.wiki/Tag:water%3Dcanal

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?

I would say so. That is the way it is normally done in the UK, especially where the exact boundary cannot be determined. Such a node already exists, though.... osm.org/node/26703040

Regarding admin boundaries, you might find this interesting: osm.wiki/User:Csmale/ukboundaries

Well, let's start with the fact that the admin boundaries in the UK are pretty much complete and correct. I maintain them personally. That's not to say there are no mistakes out there, but there aren't going to be many. If you see something you think is wrong I would be happy to investigate/advise specific cases.
Next thing is that, unlike many countries, the boundaries of administrative entities bear no deliberate resemblance to either electoral subdivisions, nor addresses, nor settlements. In general, named settlements don't have defined boundaries; there are huge areas which are not clearly in a single settlement - they may be "no-man's land" or it may be conjectural. St Helens is a good example; there is no documented boundary of an area called "St Helens" except the Borough (which contains large rural areas outside the town) and the parliamentary constituency which is a different game entirely. There is no town council, and there is no official boundary of the town (as a "settlement"). You cannot draw a line around the town and say that one side is categorically "in" St Helens and the other side is not. The fact that it would make sense if such an area would exist (looking at adjoining boundaries etc) does not mean that it does exist (remembering the OSM rule - one object IRL means one object in OSM).

District wards and civil parishes are connected only by coincidence. A ward is basically for convenience at election times (and are tagged as boundary=political), whereas a civil parish often has its own local council.

You seem not to be based in the UK, judging by the timestamps on youw work. I suggest you abstain from making changes to UK boundaries until you understand the system a bit better, lest you start to annoy people.

Hi, thanks for responding. I have taken the admin tagging off of your new St Helens boundary as it does not correspond to any (local) government entity. I see you have now tagged the source as "Ordnance Survey" - exactly which OS dataset did you use for the geometry (not just the existence) of this boundary? Is it possible that it is an electoral boundary?

Are you sure about this? There are several relations for Rochefort, as a settlement and as an administrative entity. I think you may have made a mistake here. Do you have personal knowledge of Rochefort? By the way, it is expected in OSM that you respond to changeset comments, and take them seriously. Thanks!