hi kevichella, what kind of thing is this Queensbury boundary? Is it a legal thing, like a parish council? Or is it just an area with a name? If the latter, it should be boundary=place not administrative

Hi, I have put the boundaries back to how they were. Please don't change them again without a verifiable source.

Hi,
Your updated boundary doesn't seem to correspond to the normal sources... Can you please explain the source you used for this change? Thanks!

I believe Overpass relies on Nominatim for geocode queries like this. Nominatim is not well-suited to the UK situation where there the admin boundaries and addresses live in parallel universes. The admin_level=10 boundary is strictly the boundary of the town council, which may or not correspond to a particular view of "Warwick" as a settlement. Could you use a different form of filter in Overpass? like this:
area[name="Warwick"][admin_level=10][boundary=administrative]->.warwick;
rel(pivot.warwick);
out geom;
If you want to experiment with the workings of nominatim, you might like to take a look at this: https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/details.html?osmtype=W&osmid=256062900&class=building - a reverse geocode of a building in the the centre of Warwick, so you can see what nominatim knows and what it uses.

Please revert this, it conflicts with tagging across the whole of the UK. The distinction you seek can be seen clearly in the tagging (admin=level, designation) so changing the name is unnecessary. Thanks!

Hi Dave, this is one of the dangers of people linking admin boundaries to other types of way. In this case it's a "centre line" of a waterway. The boundary is where it is, and the new data I added is far closer to being definitive than the old NPE-based data it replaced. The boundary hasn't moved, but the representation has been improved. On the other hand, what does the exact location of the line down the "middle" of a waterway actually represent? Who knows. Half the time it is simply drawn in by hand using imagery and located roughly between the two banks. I take your point about the way history (although the waterway relations can help to reconstruct older situations) but I can't see a better way to do it. Keeping the way ID and moving all the nodes?

Hi Mikhail,
I will ask you once again... Can you please stop changing the admin boundaries? They are based on an authoritative source and are legally correct, even if they don't look right to you. And would you please use English for your changesets when you are working in the UK? Thanks!
Привет Михаил,
Спрошу еще раз ... Не могли бы вы прекратить менять границы админки? Они основаны на авторитетном источнике и юридически верны, даже если вам они не кажутся подходящими. И не могли бы вы использовать английский для своих наборов изменений, когда вы работаете в Великобритании? Спасибо!

Hi Mikhail,
Can you please stop changing the admin boundaries? They are based on an authoritative source and are legally correct, even if they don't look right to you. And would you please use English for your changesets when you are working in the UK? Thanks!

Hi Alex,
Just a quick pointer: wards are boundary=political, and boundary ways not shared with true admin boundaries should be tagged as boundary=political and not boundary=administrative.

No insult intended, I accept that you intended to improve the data. i am busy with other things on OSM and it is not my "job" to notice every error. But you are armchair mapping from hundreds of kilometers away in a way that leaves the data in a worse state (what was the alternative solution in your 50-50 consideration, and why did you discard it?). Remember the wikipedia:xx tag might be deprecated now, but it was accepted once and is still widespread. If you are going to fix it, fix it right.

It's a shame you treated it like a bot doing a mechanical edit, deleting tags because you read something in the wiki and not thinking about the tag contents. A proper correction would have been to remove the link to the article about the border and replace it with the article about the country (which was linked under :en and :cy). I suspect you are more interested in suppressing the warnings than you are in the correctness of the data.

hi... can you explain what you did here, and how it "corrected" the "wikipedia notation"? As far as I can see you deleted the (correct) entries for :en and :cy, but left the (incorrect) entry alone (it is incorrect because it points to the "England-Wales border" but it should of course point to the entry for the country of Wales)

hi jimmy, your edit left the boundary in an incomplete state. I have repaired it according to OS Boundary Line information... If you still consider it to be wrong, would you please get in touch? Thanks.

Thanks!

Hi! Boundaries don't have names as such - but you could add this text as a description or a note if you like. Can you please update your edits?

Found the map your mean. The boundary is not identical to the old OS map from the Weybridge Society's website - look for example at the extreme south where it follows the A3. The north-south bit of the "settlement" boundary seems to be a bit to the east of the old map, following the B365. It looks like these eight "Settlement Areas" are basically subdivisions of Elmbridge for planning purposes. I am really not sure how these can best be tagged. Certainly not as boundary=administrative as they have no "council". But as to whether these boundaries mean anything to the average local, I doubt.

Hi, a bit of a discussion has blown up about the town boundaries, specifically Weybridge. ( osm.org/relation/9274277 ) Can you say what source you used to create that boundary, i.e. what it actually represents? Thanks!

If might be worth asking LivingWithDragons where they got their boundaries from... A boundary representing the KT13 postcode area could be added, but you can't name it "Weybridge" as Royal Mail could change the boundaries or the postcode at any time. is the boundary you have in mind well-defined and verifiable by the general public? Can you point to where the boundary is, and say if you are on this side you are IN "Weybridge" but if you take one step you are OUT of "Weybridge?" Would someone living around Silvermere or Red Hill (down in the deep south) say they are in Weybridge? In any case the boundary should not have an admin_level as it is not administrative in any way.

You (and the Society) should start by answering the question "what is Weybridge?" Is it a built-up area? Is it the area of a town council (no, because there isn't one)? Is it the area where Royal Mail use "Weybridge" as the post town? It may be all of these things, and more... but the different versions of Weybridge may have different boundaries. The map the Society references appears rather old. I would suggest that this is not so much a current boundary as an historical boundary.

Thanks for the plan... I am not sure it is actually usable though... Firstly it appears to be just a subdivision of the redevelopment area - is this area referenced in any other context by the same name? Secondly, the document is copyright with no sign (that I could see) of any licence conditions. Did you check with the council that you can use and republish their data in this way? Licensing problems are one of the biggest issues in OSM. It is taken very seriously because it can get us into a lot of trouble - legally, financially and reputational.