In my original changeset I incorrectly said "We should have one enclosing way to represent this hospital university campus."
This is because the presence of operator=university misled me into believing that this was a "University Hospital". (If ways were used instead of nodes I might not have made this mistake, as a node can be used to roughly indicate the centre of something, i.e. it doesn't necessarily delineate a separate area)

There are 1,249 nodes or ways within 20km of Cambridge that are tagged with amenity=university. 1,237 of these (i.e. almost all) have an operator=* tag on them.
Across the UK there are only 2,391 nodes or ways tagged with amenity=university.
It's great that Cambridge is so well mapped, but I think it's safe to say that amenity=university is grossly overused around Cambridge and that can and should be fixed.
This is supported by
osm.wiki/Tag:amenity%3Duniversity
"Individual elements of the university should not be tagged with amenity=university but can be mapped with operator=* and the name of the university"

Query to come up with those figures:
https://gist.github.com/eoghanmurray/4f0aa7debed9ade8a85d50cbe06b972d

By 'online map' are you referring to the blue squares here?
http://map.cam.ac.uk/#52.175363,0.141020,17
The correct fix is to key them off `operator=University of Cambridge` instead of `amenity=university`
I appreciate that my changeset messed the map up for you so won't revert the incorrect amenity=university tags but please do so after updating that mapping stylesheet.

The tag `operator=University of Cambridge` is the correct way to indicate that a node is part of another institution. `amenity=university` is a much more major thing to signify that there is (the centre of) a significant university here. E.g. The tags on node 1642015081 are saying 'There is a University called "Department of Radiology" here'. Ref: osm.wiki/Tag:amenity=university

If both this estate and the area around the village node make up a suburb, consider creating a new suburb way which encompasses both.

Forgot to mention existing Fiskerton village node at 243406279

If a way is desired for the town, I suggest creating a new relation with just the *outer* ways from relation 4610339, i.e. using a much less jagged version of this way: 329340428

This could be the relevant bug report for the rendering:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/103

Dorchester is a nearby town with a town node. The name 'Dorchester' is clearly visible on the default OSM map at zoom levels 9-15. For Bridport, the name is only visible at zoom level 12, and then just barely so. I'm not from this area, so would not be aware that Bridport exists from looking at the current rendering of the map. Of course it's possible to search the map, but this only works if you know there's somewhere called 'Bridport' in the first place!
Lakes names are displayed at wide zoom levels, 10-14 and have a nice open blue space to display the name so are currently much better handled by the renderer.
I'm not saying it's your responsibility to fix the renderer, but I'm just pointing out that OSM is currently not set up to properly display town ways, so either we need to fix the renderer or agree to continue to have at least one central node for a town (of which there are other advantages apart from the current support in the renderer).

Ya, and the road 'Bounds Green Road', so with the current situation, both of these could be taken to 'belong to' the railway station; but I don't think that's the case, ergo we should have another 'Bounds Green' entity.

I'd say @trigpoint meant that the fact that he knows of relatives living there, is grounds for further investigation, rather than grounds for restoring the suburb!
Maybe it should be mapped as a locality or neighbourhood rather than suburb? I certainly have no local knowledge. At the moment the map implies the sole entity 'Bounds Green' is a railway station, rather than the railway station being named for it's locality/suburb/town, which I think is closer to the truth?

One other -0 for not having a central node, is that it makes it much more difficult for someone to find and edit the tags of the town. I guess this is an editor problem and applies to editing of all large ways, but still, a single central node is very convenient for editing.

@pmailkeey I hear your position and agree that there might be some cases (including this one) where a central node is misleading/arbitrary and/or redundant. I also agree that rendering is up to the renderer; however if you are going to make more of these sorts of changes please lobby to have the default OSM renderer display the town way the same as it currently displays town nodes.

Hmmm, I feel like we should still have a node for towns (place=town) even when there is a way for it. Can't we retain it as role=admin_center ? It would be useful to see where the center of Bridport is in relation to the 'Allington' and 'Botherhampton' suburbs. At the moment 'Bridport' is only rendered on the map at zoom 12, and then only faintly. I assumed it had been completely deleted.

Wikipedia says this is a village, so I've added that tag (instead of the previously incorrect town tag). Let me know if this isn't correct.
osm.org/node/310089053/history

The changeset says 'add district/suburb' but Bounds Green suburb seems to be the only thing removed. Was this accidental?

No worries I'm sure you are right just hoping for an explanation as I'm trying to resolve which of the two 'Orrell' villages is correct (or both) and I was hoping for a clue in the history log.

The changeset description 'updates' is obviously terrible :D
My problem is that doesn't give any indication as to why the village 'Far Moor' was changed to 'Orrell' osm.org/node/29393735/history (There is also another village node for Orrell at 1398627543 )

This changeset deleted the Abergavenny node and recreated it (old 27160281, new 4038919407). Looks like a big changeset so not going to revert, but better if you can maintain nodes for continuity of history.

Interesting question: if it's a suburb, is it a suburb of Southport or Formby? I don't have any local knowledge and both are marked as 'town'. (Presume Southport but no way of knowing from the data)