Hi ilias_
I see that you have removed some relations due to that document you have put, but can you please add rest what are new admin_level=6 relations, now this is the only part of Morocco that has not admin_level=6 boundary

Hi Nozrak,
Do you thing that admin_level=5 may be too high for Chakma Autonomous District Council? It should be part of Lawngtlai district so previous admin_level=6 seems like more appropriate.

Hi Rippledot,
Tahulandang admin_level=5 relation relation/18226441overlaps with relation/14907627 which already covers that area.

Can you check what is the valid state and adjust admin_level value or modify relations so there is no overlap?

Hi Ksusha Zhegolko,
are you sure about this change from admin_level=6 to admin_level=8. I do understand your point, but since these are city districts of the Toshkent, they should be in the same "rank" as other districts in Uzbekistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subdivisions_of_Uzbekistan . Or is there special district for the Toshkent, because currently it looks like no admin2 level exist in the area of the capital

Good change

Thanks for a very fast reply. Happy mapping

Hi aq123,
Can you confirm that this pool name=Fitness is correct, it looks like descriptive one

Hi muralito,
I think there is a potential mistake with some river names in this changeset. You have added name:es=Arroyo de la Invernada to way/116896246 , way/1303176906 and way/1303176905 which seems not to be correct both per IGM, IGBE and Brazilian Army Topographic Maps. Can you explain your change? Also way/116895878/ has the similar issue. I think that these mentioned rivers are creating Arroio Invernada but should not have that name

Hi Tellurium,
please do not add administrative buildings in relations, admin_center role is for the place, not for the building.

Hi smeòrach,
I have a question about Leverburgh . Should the name tag be Leverburgh instead of An t-Òb because that is old name, renamed to Leverburgh in 1921. I agree that Gaelic name shoud remain the same but maybe name=Leverburgh and old_name=An t-Òb would be better solution?

Hi Kilkenni, are you sure that name for suburb node/3252578372 is "Химчистка"

Thanks for the explanation

Can you please fix the boundaries, now it is even more paradoxical

Hi Herman Lee,
I was trying to fix broken boundaries after edits of Wanglang11 and Sparkbright using available resources. There is a territorial dispute in this area so both sides will be unhappy in some way but at least everything was functional. You did a revert and made things even worse, now everything is broken: China, Tibet, Bhutan, India, subareas... Instead of revert you could just adjust ways within relations to reflect correct state. Can you please clean up this mess?

Hi MK1,
instead of deleting admin_level=4 relations, maybe reverting them and changing to boundary=census would be more precise?

I do not think this is a correct edit, this is a disputed area, but if you have knowledge of correct boundaries, than you will have to fix all state administrative boundaries, disputed ones and Admin2 in Bhutan.

Are you referring to way/1318305948

I have fixed them, but they are broken again, and there is some discussion on another changeset changeset/157107643

Hi, you have deleted boundary between Bhutan and Tibet. If this boundary is not correct, then you should add the correct one. This way both states have invalid boundaries which is bigger issue. Can you correct the boundary or I need to revert it to last known state?

Hi FoxeKing,
I have seen that you made changes to the name and int_name values, but according to osm.wiki/WikiProject_Isle_of_Man#Mapping_names_in_Manx_and_English this is wrong, you should remove int_name because there are already name:en and name:gv. Can you remove these?