Which means it is using nominatim. Please take note of the comments from me and others..... You asked for advice regarding the searches, and now you have it.

As cebderby has already requested, please provide a verifiable source for this boundary. Also, a place cannot have an address so please remove addr:city from Moorfoot

Please provide a verifiable source for the boundary. If the search engine you are using (nominatim?) is not returning the results you expect, you should raise a ticket there instead of fiddling with the data...

Hi, welcome to OSM.... Are you aware that you have deleted whole chunks of the Oswestry town council boundary? Please be careful, especially when deleting other people's work. I will fix the boundary but I cannot check the rest of your edits.

Hi,
What's the rationale behind layer=-1 on a long stretch of the River Waveney? Normally this is used for z-ordering around bridges, tunnels etc. Did you intend to apply this just to a short section where it goes under a road?
osm.org/way/65620327#map=15/52.4639/1.4667

Hi Mario,
You cannot change the fact that the city and community are two different entities. If the entries in Wikidata/Wikipedia are screwed up then it needs to be sorted out there instead of propagating the error into OSM.

Hi Mario,
You cannot change the fact that the town and civil parish are two different entities. If the entries in Wikidata/Wikipedia are screwed up then it needs to be sorted out there instead of propagating the error into OSM.

Hi, and welcome to OSM!
The node for Crownhill should not be a "member" of the MK relation. Its relationship to the Borough (boundary) is implicit by its location. Can you please remove it again? Thanks!

If you are not sure what is correct here, wouldn't it be better to flag it up with a fixme or a note on the map, so people who do know can do the right thing? Just a thought.
Regards,
Colin

I agree with lakedistrict, you need to change this back...

I agree with Phil, you need to change this back.

I found a shapefile here, that seems to indicate it should align with LWM: https://lle.gov.wales/catalogue/item/NationalParks/?lang=en

Hi! Yes, it should be a relation (type=boundary, boundary=political, electoral_division=ward) and share ways (boundary segments) where appropriate (adjoining areas, other co-linear boundaries).

Oops, sorry about that. I have fixed the NP boundary. By the way, I notice it jumps around from the low-water line (admin boundary) to the high-water line (coastline). Any idea which would be correct, for the jurisdiction of a National Park?

Hi Alex... A couple of tips if I may:
1) adjacent admin areas should share a way as the common boundary
2) more accurate community boundaries are available for download at https://www.spatialhub.scot/get-data/
3) the "place" or the "suburb" is rarely exactly equal to the admin boundary; it is probably better to consider adding separate objects to OSM for these (in the UK at least!)
4) check out the existing boundaries! The southern edge of Murrayfield should abut Gorgie/Dalry... see
osm.org/way/595146498#map=16/55.9411/-3.2379

Hi Alex, can you confirm that all the boundaries that you have set to admin_level=10 are actually administrative boundaries? Are they community council areas, or have you got some other frame of reference?

Thanks Phil!

Hi trigpoint... I don't think you meant to change all these Civil Parish relations to admin_level=6, am I right?

You are indeed right that there are other CAs at admin level 6, but I still think this is wrong, or at least needs discussion. I will ask the mailing list to see if there is any consensus there. Apart from the admin level, it is open to question whether it should actually be an administrative boundary, as the public has basically zero interaction with them (apart from electing the mayor).

You do know about UK local government, don't you? Just checking, as you are clearly based in Germany and this seems to be your first edit to UK admin boundaries.