please fix addr:housenumber - you gave it a copy of the postcode, I assume by accident

Hi,
I think you have accidentally attached the population data for Teignbridge DC to a couple of civil parishes, including at least Staverton and Slapton, which are not even in Teignbridge! Can you fix this please?

Thanks for getting back to me... All fixed, no problem!

Hi Thomas, I am not sure osm.org/way/449528174 should be part of the Haywards Heath planning area relation osm.org/relation/2924403 ... it has no role in that relation and forms a geometric hole which is probably not the intention, unless these woods are explicitly excluded from the planning area?

We cannot leave the West Hanney parish boundary as it is, as it is geometrically illegal (outer ring within another outer ring) so I will fix that immediately without deleting your additions.

Hi Nick, please don't use "X or Y" for alternative names. The "alt_name" tag is intended for that. In this case it is best to keep the name consistent from end to end: name=River Lea and alt_name=River Lee

Hi,
Please don't put a name on a boundary segment. The map rendering should take care of labelling the line where appropriate.
Thanks!
Colin

I think you should just delete the boundary relation 7262236 - I can't see any need or function for it. This is what you have now: osm.org/relation/7262236#map=17/50.94794/-1.21153

Hi Jake, are you sure a boundary relation is right here? In any case that would need to be (geometrically speaking) a valid multipolygon - here you have got a big "Q-tail"

I have updated the civil parish of Astley and Dunley and I will fix a couple of others in the area in a minute.. I can't find any record of a Civil parish called "Areley Kings" though... It looks to be included in Stourport-on-Severn CP. Do you have any pointers?

Super, that sounds spot-on, thanks!

Hmm, that sounds like it is a problem with the behaviour of the particular editor you are using. Personally I prefer Potlatch2 but I think you are using iD and I can't really help you with that.
The OS publish admin boundaries under an open licence and we are free to use this data in OSM - there are no copyright worries with this. Don't worry, I will fix it up this evening, it is only a minute's work.
KR, Colin

Hi Martin,
In OSM a "place" is often ill-defined, especially in the UK where there are no formal boundaries for "a named area". There are of course admin boundaries, but they often bear no relationship to the names of the places they contain. The "place" is more like where people identify with if you were to ask them "where do you live" or "where are we now". Even civil parishes contain multiple settlements and swathes of "no mans land" in between. So a "place" area would be appropriate for Areley Kings if it has a clear identity amongst its inhabitants (I think that is clear) and you could take a good punt at where the limits would be. The boundary may or may not coincide with the administrative boundaries... "Places" are used a lot in geocoding. I really think you should consider restoring the place boundary... By the way, "town" in OSM is intended to indicate the size/importance of the settlement and not so much the legal status; this distinction is typical of the UK and is often misunderstood/ignored. You could possibly also make the case (you can judge this better than I can) that it is a suburb of Stourport....

Hi Martin,
What is the intention behind your changes to the admin boundaries in this area? They were correct, according to a reliable source (Ordnance Survey who get the data from official sources), and you seem to have tidied them up to align better with things like hedges. Boundaries are funny things, and they are where they are, even if it doesn't seem logical...

Hi Martin,
why did you remove this boundary?

Hi Kieran,

Welcome to OSM! I hope you don't mind if I give you a couple of hints on this edit.

The two roads you added here are not going to show up unless you add some kind of highway tag to them. I suggest highway=service might be about right Also, did you know there is a tag "amenity=police" to mark a police station explicitly? Then it gets a nice icon and everyone can see what it is - including people who work with the raw data.
Lastly it looks nicer if you can get the capitalisation right - "Port of Tilbury Police".

Best regards,
Colin

Hi Phil,
An output area is only for statistical and not for local government jurisdictions... E00 polygons are not present in OSM as far as I know. The immediate source of the data may be OSBL, but the actual source of the boundary is GSS, who provide the boundaries to the OS, also for "publication and distribution". The polygons from OSBL reference the GSS code they represent.
You can see the different sorts of GSS polygons here: http://statistics.data.gov.uk/
In England we use E04, E06-E12 for admin boundaries (E12 is not strictly an admin boundary), and various others have been brought in for rescue services, political subdivisions and other things.
If you want to point out a specific OSM relation to work through, let me know.
Cheers,
Colin

Hi Phil
The areas are civil parishes, so they are definitely geographically relevant, just like districts and counties. The ref:gss indicates the ID of the polygon in official records. When the boundary changes, it gets a new ID, so knowing which version of the boundary is represented by the relation in OSM helps with the update process. They were not drawn by a 2 year old, but by government, and can only be changed by following a formal process. Often you can see they are no longer in line with current road alignments etc but it is still the boundary until it is changed....
What do you mean exactly with "there appear to be several within the town"? Which town are you looking at?

Hi... Where did you get the info that the facility itself was closed? Your link refers to the charitable organisation that used to run it, not to the facility itself.

hi, is this path really in a cutting, i.e. at a significantly lower level than the surroundings, like the inverse of an embankment? just wanted to check as it sounds a bit implausible...