I agree on your 1st point - why is an admin boundary. Agree it isn't and happy to stand this point down.

The main gripe though is the fact that there is a line/way that doesn't appear to reflect other meaningful representations of what Redcar is. The boundary as it stands is not correct as per gov uk data. https://www.planning.data.gov.uk/map/?dataset=built-up-area&dataset=local-authority-district&dataset=local-plan-boundary&dataset=parish&dataset=ward#54.6091662003156,-1.1003203020788987,13z

The boundary I would be recommending is the urban boundary principle as laid out on boundary=urban as this is currently not depicted on the map but is multiple zones across Redcar that can be a common relationship. The line/"way" as it stands though and edited in 2024 is not an accurate representation of Redcar: https://www.planning.data.gov.uk/map/?dataset=built-up-area&dataset=local-authority-district&dataset=local-plan-boundary&dataset=parish&dataset=ward#54.6091662003156,-1.1003203020788987,13z

If you wanted to create one boundary area, then it would need to include the Corus Redcar zone and exclude most of the area adjacent to South Gare Road.

If this is an accurate representation of Redcar, could you indicate the data source/evidence?

This is remarked as a generic line but should be an administrative boundary

Agree to comment by RedEarth - changeset should be reverted in line with highway=construction

Note this opened on Wed 13 Jun 2018: https://www.eastdunbarton.gov.uk/news/bishopbriggs-relief-road-phase-4-open