just a quick comment... please note that parish and other council boundaries (boundary=administrative) are defined by law, and the OS data is pretty much by definition correct. Suburbs are a different concept, and the boundaries tend to be fuzzy on occasions. So please carry on with the suburbs, but don't "fiddle" with the admin boundaries unless you have a source at least as good as the OS! Thanks

Sounds almost right, except there is no precedent for adding "place" objects to admin boundaries. Places often tend to have fuzzy boundaries and are not part of the administrative hierarchy. I understand you are looking to fill in the hole in the parished areas, but that would be done geometrically by the E43 unparished area. Unparished areas are just fillers, they don't have names; If the boundaries are co-linear with the boundaries of a "place" then there are still two objects.
As you have seen there is already a polygon representing the "place" of Margate (r9355762). If you want to have an object representing the unparished area as well, as you have done by r12216178, that's fine, and a case can be made for including it as a subarea of TDC. I would suggest changing the designation to unparished_area though as I believe there are quite a few of these around already.
Regards, Colin

Hi Jay.... we don't use boundary=administrative (and admin_level) for unparished areas because there is (and can be) no "administration" by definition. By the same token it can't have an "admin_centre." Boundary=place might be appropriate in some cases though - but not here I think because I suspect not everywhere in the polygon will identify as being "in Margate." I will leave that last point to the locals...
Regards, Colin

Long time ago! This relation represents the legal definition of the Civil Parish, i.e. not the village, and also not the parish council (which is shared with Sarre). Not many people reference a CP as an object in its own right, but they consider it a synonym for the parish council. The orthography in the OS data about the parishes (not the councils) in this case is with spaces, not hyphens; as that data is derived from the "legal sources" I consider it personally to be the correct way of labelling the parish. However there are many inconsistencies across the country on this point so I am not going to "fight" about it!
Regards,
Colin

Thanks @SK53, you learn something every day!

what are "Knepp Wildland" an "Southern Block"? Perhaps you can add some tags to clarify.

Hi jose... why did you delete these buildings? What is the source of your knowledge that they no longer exist?

It has been brought to the attention of the UK community via the talk-gb mailing list

Hi,
I think you have caused a few problems here. You have deleted many things and broken structures like admin boundaries. I suggest you revert these changes and try again more carefully, remembering that the OSM map is for everyone. If you need any help please ask, here, or on a mailing list (I suggest talk-gb for this). Thanks!
Regards,
Colin

Hi Alex, I can't find the slightest indication that a boundary change is under consideration around Honeysuckle Road. It looks like it will be remaining a bit of an anomaly. Confirmation that it is currently in NE Derbyshire is here: https://checkmypostcode.uk/s410qh

Hi Craig...My instinct says that government surveyors have probably been on site at some stage with sub-cm-level accuracy equipment, and the coordinates of the nodes have been transformed mathematically to the locations you see now in OSM. I appreciate you know a lot more about aerial photography than I do, but we are regularly warned that, despite very clever orthorectification, satellite imagery can be very inaccurate. In this case we are not talking about the odd metre or two, but a discrepancy of 100-200m (rough guess) which is a bit more serious. It's possible that the imagery is right, and the OS are using an old, bad survey I suppose. If you leave your line in its current position, you should certainly update the source=* tag though.
One other comment: this is an admin boundary (not coastline) which (in the UK) should correspond to MLWS. We have no idea of the state of the tide at the moment the images were taken, therefore it is impossible to say the boundary is exactly where it appears to be on the photo. The same goes for the coastline, normally taken as MHWS. In this case the OS show the admin boundary and MHWS as coincident, which usually means very steep cliffs, which is very possible on this rocky outcrop. It may also mean that it hasn't been surveyed properly...
Regards, Colin

What does "Possible Access only" mean, and is it really the name (and not a description)?

Hi... What's your source for the admin boundary around Sule Stack, and why is it better than the "official" line surveyed by Ordnance Survey? As you will understand the data of the state survey agency is likely more reliable than aerial photography, especially up there in Orkney.

I think access=private would be better here. See osm.wiki/Tag:access%3Dprivate

I think you might find access=private a better fit. Access=no means nobody, at any time, under any circumstances. Are visitors allowed, without pre-arranging? If so, it may even be access=permissive.

Thanks for fixing!

Hi,
I think you may have confused an Admin Boundary with a footpath here. Under some circumstances it may be OK for them to share nodes (if they are linked by definition) but they should not share ways, even if they are co-linear, as they are different objects. I think you should draw a new line for this part of the trail.
osm.org/way/876363323#map=19/52.95007/-3.90777

Because the boundaries are imported from professional surveys at cm-level accuracy. The boundaries are more correct than the imagery, which is known to be subject to georectification errors. Why are the waterways not aligned with the boundaries? They may be, by accident or design. The legal boundary is where the government say it is. As rivers meander or otherwise change course, the boundary may or may not automatically change with it. The legal boundaries sometimes get updated for this, but not frequently; nonetheless, the boundary is where it is. What does the waterway line represent in OSM anyway? Deepest channel? Slowest flow? Midway between the banks? Hence I keep the boundaries unlinked from the waterway when adding new boundaries or when there are significant updates.

Yes indeed, that would be appropriate, but it's a big IF. The boundaries of a "place" are notoriously fuzzy, and that's why they are mostly represented as nodes in OSM. A boundary implies that if you are on one side, you are unambiguously INSIDE that area, and if you take one step to cross that boundary, you are unambiguously OUTSIDE that area. With legally defined things it can be done, with postal addresses it becomes more controversial already as people don't always identify the location of their house with the place that Royal Mail think they should!
Be aware of the concept of "tagging for the renderer". This is about tweaking the tagging in order to produce a desired optical result on some map or other and is considered a heinous sin in OSM... osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

OK, it looks like the boundary you have used represents an electoral ward within Bradford. Electoral wards are not counted as administrative as they cannot have a council - they play no part in the government of the area other than for election purposes. We tag these areas as boundary=political without an admin_level. For more details, please refer to osm.wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dpolitical