Hi,
viaduct is a bridge composed of several small spans for crossing a valley or a gorge. This is not a viaduct, so can you fix the bridge tag on 1915 Çanakkale Köprüsü

Thanks for response. We can remove source:type and description tags once you make a decision about the further actions, so you do not need to work on this

Hi AlexLabrada,
why have you removed administrative boundary tags from the Isla de la Juventud

Hi Taya,
please reconsider your decision of reverting all these edits since our team have not done any of the imports and we were focused on fixing natural=coastline items in a way that we created or assigned names to an existing coastline or lakes using rendering on Greenland Topographic Map which is available source in JOSM. I do not see the need for reverting something that really exist on the ground. I do agree that using undiscussed source is a problem, but that is more on user andershl to be discussed with. We have seen discussion on his diary @andershl/diary/48132 where woodpeck had remark: The data can be useful - put it in a shape file, and everyone can load it in their editor and copy names to osm FROM THE SHAPEFILE instead of from imported nodes.

This is why using data was never questioned.

I would suggest to you first to revert all the changes to original state. Then, discuss with Turkmenistan and OSM community about what you suggest has sense. If agreement is achieved, edit boundary=administrative wiki page with agreed admin_level descriptions. Then, move all existing relations to corresponding levels and then introduce new ones. Currently there is an overlap of administrative areas across the country, which is a bad thing. I would like to jump in and help you with edits on the map once agreement is made.

I see that you have added a lot of admin_level=6 relations, but these should be admin_level=8 or 9 per boundary=administrative

Can you explain why using admin_level=6?

I think that Hong Kong Island node can not be admin_center but label of Hong Kong, and node of the city should have admin_center role because it is always a place which have administrative body controlling the area

Hi Kovoschiz, can you explain the need for admin_level=4 relation here?

Hi, what is the goal of this? Is there any description of how to tag this nodes to coastlines?

Hi eiriks, just take care when you draw the coastlines, they need to be drawn counterclockwise. natural=coastline

How can admin_level=6 of Macau be a part of admin_level=6 of China? You have put Hengqin Port Transportation Hub Platform as a part of Macau, and therefore it should be excluded from Xiangzhou

Hi, distrito boundaries are now broken, can you fix this?

Hi Rukkhadevata, can you answer to the 蕉饼电脑 comment since I have very similar question?

There is a Pingtan boundary present at admin_level=6 relation/3263974. This one is de-jure boundary. If you wanted this admin_level=5 to be de-facto I think boundary=administrative is not a proper tag. You should, maybe, use boundary=special_economic_zone if there are some different laws applied for this area. Current tagging is making overlap on admin_level=5 administrative boundary type which is the worst solution applied.