I can also see the same issue in OsmAnd. After poking around it seems to me that the most likely cause will be that the boundary in this place is using a part of coastline (www.openstreetmap.org/way/41744416). This seems more like a bug on the OsmAnd side. We can always duplicate the way and use it to replace the coastline in the admin relations, but then that starts to smell like a mapping for renderer.

Regarding the duplicate boundaries, back then I created one for every city (admin_level=9) and for every town (admin_level=8). It might not be necessary since all cities got consolidated with towns. All BUT one exception and that is Groton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groton_(city),_Connecticut). So I just kept the "duplicates" for the sake of completeness and in case someone wants to query cities separately.

Hi, thanks for the nice edits. I am just checking if you are sure that those are tracks. Meaning that they can actually support movement of 4-wheeled vehicle. Some of angles also look too sharp for car turning..

Ah right B and V are right next to each other. That was probably it :)

Hi Jack, is there any reason to keep all those houses as one huge multipolygon?

Great plan. If you want to see better through tree canopies you can switch to a different background imagery. Press B and choose 'Esri World Imagery (Beta)' or 'CT ECO Orthoimagery'.
Keep up the good work!

Great job! This area is looking amazing!

Nice. Thanks for the info!

@David: What we are collectively trying to explain to you is that OSM takes an iterative approach. When the data are first time entered into OSM they might be somewhat inaccurate, but subsequent edits make them more refined and true to the reality. Purely deleting the data, as you are doing, does not improve anything.

In JOSM you can fast create the multipolygon relation with Ctrl+B or update an existing multipolygon with Shift+Ctrl+B. (Though I think you have to install utilsplugin2 first)

Hi David,
this is unfortunately not the first time, but I hope it will be the last time I have to say it. Please don't remove forests and other land covers. If you see any inaccuracies, you can easily move their nodes to fix the shape according to the recent aerial imagery.

It was actually just a normal pond.

Hi thanks for editing. Just a couple of questions. Why is it necessary to remove coastline tag from islands? Wiki says that it belongs there (natural=coastline).
And what does is_in:island=island tag mean? I don't see it anywhere documented.

Hi,
thanks for editing but in such cases we add `access=private` tag and don't delete the object itself.

Also please don't add hole numbers into 'name' tag. They belong to 'ref' tag.

Hi,
please don't use highway=path objects to draw outlines of parking lots (e.g. way/1080302313). Parking lots are tagged with amenity=parking.
Also please don't create overlaps between golf=green and golf=fairway. More information how to properly map golf courses can be found on wiki leisure=golf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls

You're doing an amazing job, thanks!

That building is actually still there, just tucked under the tree canopy. In iD editor press "B" and choose "CT ECO Orthoimagery (2019)" or "Esri World Imagery (Clarity) Beta".

Hi, the driveway is behind a gate or has a no trespassing sign, you can add a `access=private` tag to the driveway line. In iD this can also be done by going to "Allowed Access > All > private"

Ok, if you know that a driveway is not to be used for delivery or general traffic, then you can add `access=private` tag which should prevent routing software to navigate through that section.

Correct, if there is a physical island then the correct way is to draw it as circle, because the car can't pass through. But if the island is missing or is just painted then it should stay as a turning_circle node.

Hi,
here you also deleted roads that still exist. They appear a bit damaged but it still seems cars could drive there. If the roads have no trespassing they should be tagged as access=private or access=no.