I also wonder if (for example) Avonmouth or Severn Beach should be within the "place" of Bristol. I would think it would be better if they were their own "place".

Hi,
I don't think this should be boundary=administrative unless it represents the area governed by a council. There is already a relation for the City of Bristol area, which extends beyond the city itself of course, but I don't believe there is any other (parish/city) council for the area of this relation is there? Unless there is, it shouldn't be tagged as an administrative boundary, just as a place.

ok but flat holm and steep holm have never been included in the CoB area anyway so I am not sure what you are getting at there... W.r.t. the boundary of England, it is unclear what the authority is for that. The maritime dividing line between England and Wales for environmental purposes such as fisheries (due to devolution) is defined by law, and a small part of the CoB seaward extension is therefore included in Welsh "territorial waters". If you modify the boundary of England, what will you do with the boundary of Wales? From an international perspective the sovereign state for anything that may occur in the "grey area" is the UK, not England or Wales.
When you say a boundary following the coastline makes more sense, I can understand what you mean, but in this case it is factually wrong as the admin boundary is what it is. There is a difference between the semantics of the admin boundary and the coastline: LA jurisdiction normally extends to MLW, whereas the coastline is normally taken as MHW. Certainly around the Bristol Channel area there can be a large difference between the two. You could add a boundary for the "conurbation" of Bristol with something like "place=city" which doesn't need any authority, just the limits of the actual built-up area which could be done from aerial photos or surveys.

I am reverting this change because it is not correct! The boundary of the City of Bristol includes by law the seaward extension out to Flat/Steep Holm. Please contact me if you have any issue with this!

the boundary seems to have an extra loop in it... can you take a quick look? thanks

Hallo Paul,
I will look into this, it looks wrong.
Can I suggest we continue through the wiki email system, and not in this changeset discussion? It is a bit unwieldy and it is not really intended for this. You can contact me on this page: osm.wiki/Special:EmailUser/Csmale

I think you will need a wiki account if you don't already have one.

Thanks!
Colin

Hi Paul, don't worry, no offence taken!
The naming can get pretty messy sometimes, especially with parishes because of joint/grouped parishes, lands common, detached parts etc. The boundaries in OSM represent the areas of land, not the council which has been designated to govern it. It sounds silly, and usually it is indeed 1:1 but not always. So to keep the data correct, I prefer the neutral form, putting the name of the council in "council_name". Constituent parishes of a JPC can then be identified by the council name.
This is my page on UK boundary tagging in OSM; please let me know if you can suggest any improvements!
osm.wiki/User:Csmale/ukboundaries

Regards,
Colin (csmale on the wiki)

Hi there, thanks for responding. If I understand your position correctly, everything is now OK for you except you think the name on the admin_level=8 boundary should be "Warwick District" instead of plain "Warwick", am I right?
This is a bit of a controversial point. The suffix "District" can easily be derived from the admin level and official designation which identifies it as a non-metropolitan district (at least it should). Whether the name includes the "District" part or not varies across the country, but my preference is to exclude it as it can easily be reconstructed and it clutters the map without adding much that isn't obvious anyway.

Can you please include the actual IDs of the objects you are referring to? I am 99% sure there has never been any confusion in the OSM data between the CP and the district boundary, and if you can point me at the relation you mean, I will investigate the history and see what has been going on there.

Best regards,
Colin

PS: I have been looking after UK admin boundaries in OSM for many years so I am well aware of the hierarchy....

sorry, I have changed this back as you have misunderstood the workings of admin boundaries in OSM. The Warwick boundary represents the town council which in legal terms is a civil parish council. The district council area should have an admin_level of 8. If you have any questions please get in touch.

Hi, great that you are not adding tracks=N any more! Maybe you will review and tidy up all the ones you have added? And the maxheight tagging in Enschede is confusing... the road under the bridge was already tagged with maxheight, and you added strange height/maxheight tags to nodes on that way AND some separate nodes... Please consult the wiki re: maxheight and traffic signs

hopefully it is better now (for the Arriva routes)

Yes indeed... and not everyone is enthusiastic about the changes either. Oh well, more work to add to the backlog...

Indeed Steve, it corresponds with many other sources as the address for the filing station, but no sign of it as a street name so I left that alone.

Is this for real? It looks like you are using the real, live, world-wide map for your personal experiments... Please tidy up behind you...

Niet dus, ik ga ze terugzetten op residential.

Zijn al deze hofjes inderdaad living_street, met bord G05 (Erf)?

that document shows that Ireland does not put Rockall within its EEZ. Rockall is 57+N and the northernmost point in the Irish act is 56+N so Rockall cannot be covered. Do you agree that it can be taken out of the Ireland relation now?

should this still be part of the Ireland relation? according to wikipedia "With effect from 31 March 2014, the UK and Ireland published EEZ limits which resolved any disputes over the ownership of the islet"

Why did you set Merseyside back to Administrative? There is no longer a council and it no longer exists as an administrative entity.

This changeset appears to have damaged the North Ayrshire boundary relation by removing the coastline segments... please fix or revert!