Thanks for responding. Local knowledge is best! I see now from your other edits that you obviously have that! The aerials of the "Twenty Acre" pitches look to me like they have been out of use for some time (no visible lines) but there are some goals visible in some photos (Esri World Imagery), that look far too small for soccer. Just a guess, but maybe this is what suggested field hockey in the first place?

Hi! How did you find out that the pitches are used for rugby/soccer and not for hockey? Was that based on local knowledge, or aerial photos? It would be good to mention the source in the changeset comments by the way.

Hi!
Where did you get your village boundaries from? They seem to duplicate civil parishes which are legally defined, but a "place" is a much vaguer concept.

Thanks for the link to WBC. However this seems to corroborate my viewpoint. The new station is not shown as the base map is too old. For orientation, check out how far north the top of the "triangle" is, relative to the lake to the east of Flagstaff Road.
https://www.planvu.co.uk/wbc/map.php?map=proposals&data=bWFwZXg9NDY5MDgyLDE2OTk4OSw0NzAwMjUsMTcwMzg4Jnpvb209NiZhbm5vdGF0aW9ucz0mYW5ub0xhYmVscz0=&layers=all
Do you have an example of your viewpoint?

If you don't mind I will revert the boundary changes as nothing has officially been changed - it would actually need an act of parliament to do that in this case!

Hi,
Could you explain where you got your information from regarding the boundaries that you "clarified"? There doesn't seem to be have been any official process to change the boundaries. This article reflects the fact that the border crosses the station area: https://www.getreading.co.uk/news/property/plans-new-reading-station-building-16827876
Has something now changed officially?
By the way, I have a problem understanding what you mean here by "making the boundaries a bit clearer" - can you explain what you were intending?
Thanks!

Unfortunately the tagging for your new Pudsey relation is rather incorrect. You have replaced incomplete data with incorrect data which means it will no longer get flagged up to people with the knowledge to fix it properly... This is not improving the map quality, but just suppressing the warnings. You wouldn't take the oil pressure indicator out of your car would you?

Please don't do this... Admin boundaries are distinct from coastlines, even when they are apparently geometrically coincident. I am going to revert this change.

Hi!
Please note comments on changeset osm.org/changeset/134980758
It's great that you are doing us a favour by creating the relations, but unfortunately they are wrongly tagged.

Hi,
Electoral wards are not admin boundaries! As per the wiki:
osm.wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dpolitical

In the mean time @Garmin_User has kindly created the relations that are normally used for boundaries, in changeset osm.org/changeset/135004564

Please change the tagging to boundary=political and remove admin_level on the ways and relations, and add political_division=ward to the relations.
Thanks!

Hi, Please use meaningful changeset comments! It makes it easier for other mappers to understand the background to your changes. Thanks!

Searching from the website is done by a component called Nominatim. It is programmed to only look at certain tags on certain objects. It is possible that it's not picking up your boundary=geocaching relations. Also, as it is external to the core of OSM, its indexing can sometimes lag behind a little. Can I suggest you drop a question into the tagging mailing list?

Hi Si,
I'll just post a quick note into talk_gb to see if anyone picks up on any aspect. I can see where you're coming from, and understand your frustrations with the mailing lists. If nobody else finds it a problem then I will be only too happy to go with the consensus. It's not my map either...
Regards, Colin

Possibly a bit premature... Admin_level=9 is not part of the normal UK hierarchy and a discussion is needed...

Don't forget to add the roles (in most cases this will be "outer") to the boundary ways

Hi Si,
I am a little wary of giving these community boards a place in the administrative hierarchy, as they don't seem to have any statutory basis and have no form of elected or otherwise representative government. In any case adopting a specific admin_level value should probably be checked in talk_gb first?
Regards, Colin

Hi Paul, the source for the boundary you added is strictly speaking not for the civil parish, but for an electoral district or ward of Ryedale DC. They may be coincident, but that is not guaranteed. A better source for civil parish boundaries is Ordnance Survey, which was actually used in this case (see the tagging of the boundary ways).

Remember this object represents the area, not the council. The council name provides a bit of context, but the councils themselves are not represented in OSM as they are not "geographic data". This council calls itself "Comhairle nan Eilean Siar" in English as well, so this is its name:en. But it's not worth fighting over so I will let it go.

I disagree with this change. "Western Isles Council" is a translation, and not the name the council uses. Even in an English context, the council name is "Comhairle nan Eileanan Sar" - check out their website if you don't believe me.

No, relation #13466955 is not an admin boundary. However the ways of which it is composed, do represent (parts of) admin boundaries.