Is this area really an administrative exclave of Aberdeenshire council embedded in Aberdeen City? Such situations are not unknown, but are extremely unusual. If it is an exclave, could please add a note to explain?

A "Parish Ward" in England is an optional subdivision of a Civil Parish, that returns one or more Parish Councillors. Not all Civil Parishes are "warded" in this way; some are just one big "ward" with the top X candidates being elected. A Civil Parish (which is a land area, not an administrative body) often shares boundaries with a District Ward. I believe all Districts (and Boroughs and Unitaries) are warded, but I may be wrong here.
In Scotland, all council areas are divided (by the Councils, not by the Scottish Government) into Communities, which may or may not have a council. These are analogous to the English civil parishes, albeit with more limited powers. The boundaries for the Scottish Communities are available as shapefiles from the Scottish Government (start here: https://data.gov.uk/dataset/1d488abe-f8e8-4ff0-b7b7-9c976b9bce64/community-council-boundaries-scotland ).
The Scottish Council ward boundaries, just for election purposes to the "big" council, are here ( http://www.lgbc-scotland.gov.uk/maps/4thelectoral/ ). This is (I assume) what you have been adding to OSM.
I hope this clarifies things a bit - get back to me if not! --colin

please tag electoral wards as boundary=political, political_division=ward and not as boundary=administrative, admin_level=10. The latter tagging is for community councils in Scotland. Electoral wards are not "administrative" in the OSM sense. Thanks!

Thanks John. The issue as I (and others) see it, is that the "place" as such doesn't have defined boundaries, and to infer that by tagging a polygon is misleading. The built-up areas, landuse=residential, is not correct because if you are in the park off Burge Cres/Graham Way, which is outside the residential polygon, but I am sure you would consider yourself "in" Cotford St Luke.

Hi John, why did you delete the place node for Cotford St Luke village?

Preferred by whom? The Town Council uses "Royal" in the full name of the council, but in just about all other references on their website they just use "Sutton Coldfield." So who else uses the "Royal" prefix on a regular basis?

Hi,
I notice you have followed the low-water line (admin boundary) and not the high-water line (coastline). I would have expected this relation to include the foreshore. Any thoughts?

I take it back, just read about the structure change. Sorry!

Why have you changed the boundary=administrative into boundary=historic? These appear to be current admin boundaries.

I think it would be better (and less work for you!) if you leave the OSBL boundaries in place. They are based on accurately surveyed lat/lon positions. Note that admin boundaries are a matter of law and don't move without an act of parliament or similar. What you have done is actually ruined the accurate boundary that was there before. Would you consider reverting these changes, and then adding your LEZ boundary without upsetting the OSBL data?
An accurate LEZ boundary (which does correspond to OSBL) is available from TfL: http://roads.data.tfl.gov.uk/boundaries/LEZ_Boundary_20071113_tab_shape.zip

Thanks!

Sorry, please ignore the above comment here, it was intended for a different changeset!

Hi,
May I enquire what your source is for this detailed LEZ boundary information? I notice it frequently deviates from the OS Boundary-Line alignment, just wondering which is more accurate.
I notice you leave the source of the boundary ways as OS Boundary Line when you do a "replace geometry" in JOSM. This is of course misleading as the alignment no longer corresponds to OSBL. It would be better to update it to reflect your source.

Hi,
May I enquire what your source is for this detailed LEZ boundary information? I notice it frequently deviates from the OS Boundary-Line alignment, just wondering which is more accurate.
I notice you leave the source of the boundary ways as OS Boundary Line when you do a "replace geometry" in JOSM. This is of course misleading as the alignment no longer corresponds to OSBL. It would be better to update it to reflect your source.

Hi, The Post Office (actually Royal Mail) hasn't used postal counties since 2013. They are tolerated in addresses, but add no significance. In any case they have never been "administrative" with a council and so on.... I would advise ignoring these postal counties as mere relics from the past.

Hi,
I am not sure what your intent is with "Oakridge Park"... is it a kind of suburb or neighbourhood?
Apart from that, a boundary relation cannot have just an "inner" ring; it must have at lease one "outer" ring. Maybe you meant "outer" in this case?
Regards,
Colin

Hi Paul,
AFAIK Skelmersdale does not (yet) have a town council... An admin boundary relation is not appropriate in this case. If and when West Lancs Borough does a Community Governance Review and formally create the Civil Parish should this relation be created. My opinion is that this relation should be deleted at present.
Kind regards,
Colin Smale

Hi Jay,
Please revert the St -> Saint changes unless the signs (or other authoritative sources) actually say "Saint". The case of place/street names with "St" is explicitly covered in the Wiki...

osm.wiki/Names#Abbreviation_.28don.27t_do_it.29

Thanks!

Hi Jay,
Please revert the St -> Saint changes unless the signs (or other authoritative sources) actually say "Saint". The case of place/street names with "St" is explicitly covered in the Wiki...

osm.wiki/Names#Abbreviation_.28don.27t_do_it.29

Thanks!

Just had a look at OSSV in JOSM... If you zoom in a bit it looks clear to me that the boundaries from the Manchester shapefile do not blindly follow the centre line of Upper Chorlton Road, there are all kinds of wobbles... It's a bit difficult to quantify (OSSV does not represent the true width of the road) but going by the building outlines it looks like a couple of metres in many places.
Of course for electoral wards this is not normally an issue as the important thing is addresses and their inhabitants. But for highways authorities it may be different.... Who is responsible for that pothole? I would like to think that pragmatism reigns supreme in practice but with councils who knows how petty they can get?
Cheers,
Colin

Hi Rick,
That the boundary (appears) to follow the centre line or the road, makes it tempting to link the two; but the legal definition of the boundary these days is "the line on a map" which possibly has a historical link to the line of a road or watercourse at the time it was drawn, but the link is broken at the instant the act or S.I. is made to create the boundary. If the road or watercourse is subsequently altered, the boundary legally remains in its old location. The maps giving the legal definition are held by the (local) government concerned and OS are informed of any changes. So the one true source is (local) government and the OS is a very close second. In some cases (not necessarily in the UK) the boundary can be defined by descriptive text, like "following the centre line of the river" - in this case the boundary would move with changes in the river, but this is not the case with UK admin boundaries (AFAIK...). Frederiks comment suggests reusing the highway nodes only in these cases...
Re: the alignment: points from and authoritative source have to be considered accurate in terms of lat/lon (as they have been surveyed to centimetre accuracy and/or digitised from a very large scale map), whereas we all know that aerial imagery can be offset by many metres depending on the orthorectification process. So when we import a boundary from an official shapefile, as we are both doing, this geometry is IMHO more reliable than any imagery. I admit I have been looking at the Bing imagery, not OSSV...