[Talk-GB] Possible Boundary Vandalism Warning

[Colin Smale]

Just wanted to give everyone a heads-up...

User SemanticTourist has been very busy recently with Neighbourhood Plan 
areas, particularly in East/West Sussex, Kent and central England.
He has been adding them to the map in a way that IMHO is not compatible 
with current practice.

Note that Neighbourhood Plan areas are often coincident with civil 
parishes, as the parish council is invited to make its own NP. However 
this is not always the case.
The parish can exclude parts of its area from the NP area, and can 
cooperate with adjacent parishes to "trade" areas in order to make more 
sense from a planning perspective.
In addition, NPs can be set up for non-parished areas by suitable bodies 
as determined by the main local authority.

I make the following observations:
1) He uses a single way (with common nodes on common boundaries with 
adjacent areas) for a complete boundary instead of boundary relations 
and a shared way
2) Tagging the way with boundary=administrative, admin_level=10 despite 
the fact that they do not represent an area of local government
3) There appears to be something not quite right with the projection of 
his boundaries as they are displaced by several metres with respect to 
existing boundaries

In spite of promises made in email exchanges he is continuing to work in 
this way. As far as I am concerned it's fine to add NP areas to OSM, but 
not as boundary=administrative with
an admin_level as this overloads the way parish/community areas are 
tagged at present. We were getting closer and closer to complete 
coverage of admin areas in the UK but this
is just spoiling it.

What do others think?

Colin