sorry, can you be more specific? not sure what your point is

sorry, you are wrong about the embassies... they are in the host country and the host country law applies, even within embassies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission#Extraterritoriality

Hi Mark, I am not so sure it's a good idea to put multiple bus stops and a railway station all on the same node. They are separate objects and should really have their own nodes, as they used to have. Will you consider unravelling this please?
Regards, Colin

No problem Brian

If you are referring to the 12 tags with the underscores and capitals, I cannot take responsibility for them. If you look back in the history you can see they were added by the original creator of the relations (the user srbrook comes up a lot) and I have simply let them be. I have just been filling in tags like "admin_level" and "designation" following established practise.
My suspicion is that these 12 tags are copied from metadata fields in the OS Boundary-Line data set. I also use OSBL for my work on admin boundaries, but I never use the metadata in this way.

Hi Brian,

I just added some structured data. Basically it acknowledges the fact that civil parishes and parish councils are two different things.
It's not an import, the data is from my own research. It is also a matter of public record.

why did you link a place in the UK to the German Wikipedia page?

hi... i think the role should be main_stream, and not main stream (i.e. with an underscore not a space)... see osm.wiki/Relation:waterway

Sure... the name was removed as it is not the name of the road. The information in "name" is a) the colloquial name of the exit (Bullewijk) and b) the number of the road to which the exit leads (S111).

This should really not be an admin boundary relation... Please take an example from the other subrelations in EuroVelo.

absolutely no reason at all! thanks for finding it.. it was 3 years ago as well!

Hi Jay,
Is the name normally spelt out in full on local signs? Officially it seems to be spelt St. Fagans, and there is an exception to the "no abbreviations" convention in OSM for Saint in place names.
Best regards, Colin

Why are you doing this? AFAIK there is no requirement to have the members of a boundary relation in any particular order. Are you stalking me?

hi,
please be aware that i am doing a major update of the admin boundaries in cheshire at the moment, which is going to take several days. i am reviewing the area several times a day for errors. your fixes, although correct, are confusing... can you please contact me before you do any more fixes in this area? thanks!

Thanks Richard, I can see that all the CPs in CW&C need a good review in OSM after the 2015 changes. I will whizz through them all ASAP, using your new boundary relation. (I have tooling to make this pretty simple)

Hi Richard,
It is not clear what this new boundary is actually the boundary of.... Is it really a local government boundary? Can you explain?
thanks,
Colin

Cheers!

Hi Rikki,
"The Weald" always was a bit of an arbitrary area, just a big diamond shape really. I have no idea if there is an objective boundary in existence... I suggest you just complete the loop again, adding an additional node somewhere around Falmer.
Regards, Colin
PS It wasn't my work...

Hi Rikki, your edits seem to have removed a huge segment of the relation for The Weald (2066141) - can you fix this please? I fail to see the "accuracy improvement" in this edit by the way...

Hi Dave, thanks for catching that, I have fixed it now.