Hi, thanks for responding.
We need to establish what is meant by "Redcar" here. Is it the conurbation (built-up area), post town, some council area, an electoral area (parliamentary constituency, ward, county electoral division etc) or what? They are all distinct entities, and can all have their own boundaries in OSM, but need to be tagged in the appropriate way. Boundary=urban is (AFAIK) scarcely used in the UK.
To be an admin boundary, it needs to represent the area for some kind of official body with democratic status, possibly in this case a Town Council (civil parish) but there isn't one here.
The line in question is not one of mine, and I have no idea what it intends to represent; I removed its "boundary=administrative" because that is definitely not correct. I work from legally established data, such as Ordnance Survey Boundary-Line.

Please explain a) why Redcar (town) should have an admin boundary in OSM and b) why this line is a correct representation of it

Hi Matty,
There wasn't a level 10 boundary for Redcar because there is no Redcar town/parish council. What source did you use to establish that this is the boundary of "Redcar"?
Also, it is "traditional" to re-use boundary segments where that makes semantic sense. In this case, if "Redcar Town Council" should come into existence, its boundary would be shared with the adjacent admin areas, so there is no overlap possible.

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your observation!
The deletion was correct. Llangwm was a separate community until 2022, when it was merged with Llantrisant Fawr. I meant to delete it when I made that edit, but I must have missed it and someone else got there first!
By the way, there is still another community called Llangwm, in Pembrokeshire: relation/11180866
Regards, Colin

Just curious... Where did you find the postcode boundaries (not the centroids)?

Hi Ryan, indeed, you selected the wrong "way". I think your customer meant that the bridge over the railway line is closed to all (motor) vehicles (and not the whole length of Broadmead Road). This appears to be already correctly mapped in OSM; no moto vehicles, taxis included, should be routed across the bridge itself. For future reference, marking a road as "motor_vehicle=no" would achieve what you wanted. Just "taxi=no" wouldn't stop a bus or a car for example.

Hi Ryan... In this changeset you have added "taxi=no" to a couple of electoral ward boundaries. I suspect you meant to add them to the roads which they follow.
Did you really mean that these roads are forbidden for (all) taxis? I'm checking because that sounds rather implausible, and I have no idea how that would be made obvious in terms of road signs.

How does one interpret designation=public_footpath in combination with access=no? Specifically here: way/399112196#map=16/51.67607/-2.19830
Strangely this way is both a footpath and an admin boundary. As both can be considered "primary function" it would be better to separate them into their own ways, even if they are perfectly colinear.

Please revert these changes. railway=preserved is problematic and has been superseded by railway:preserved=yes. Please refer to railway=preserved?uselang=en-GB

That the authority has an elected Mayor. Not all Combined Authorities do.

Hi,
Please change this back. In general we don't use admin_level=9 in the UK. Town councils are administratively equivalent to civil parishes, and both fit at admin_level=10.

Sounds a bit redundant, tbh. A bit like "this page intentionally left blank (apart from this text, obviously)"

Hi Paul,
Formally, unparished areas don't have a name. They often cover wide areas containing many settlements, making it difficult to imagine a sensible name for the whole area. Sometimes they are created by the abolition of a civil parish, so I guess the name of that could be carried over. But in any case the boundaries of a settlement in the UK are notoriously vague - pick a point between two villages and ask a sample of people "where am I?" and you are unlikely to get a clear consensus unless it's "somewhere between A and B."
Regards, Colin

i agree with @DorneyLake123, I will revert to admin_level=9

This is incorrect. I will revert this change.

i think you meant to connect the new N-S cycle track to the existing E-W path, not to an admin boundary.

the problem was the role, not the membership. please take care to fix the problem and not just cover up the symptom.

It's a bit difficult to judge what's actually right and wrong here. Establishing MHWS and MLWS can't be done from a simple aerial photo of course; it's a complex process. They can be coincident, and often are: vertical cliffs, quaysides, negligible tidal heights... Regarding OS data for the foreshore limits, I would suggest that the most recent data is the best we are ever going to get into OSM. Have you checked the survey dates on the various sources? Although in this case the actual line is unlikely to change very much over time, survey techniques do improve, leading to the later data being a better approximation of reality than earlier surveys.
Regarding the two larger outcrops: you actively removed the coastline tagging, that's different to failing to add. OS also has criteria for islets in Boundary-Line, including a minimum area of 0.4 ha (at high tide).

Why did you remove natural=coastline on all the islets? According to OS at least two of them are above MHWS (almost always above sea level) and so qualify as coastline.

I would also suggest that their mandates are markedly "inferior" to parish and town councils, and admin_level=11 would be more appropriate in order to keep that distinction.