？？？？ is 3

Do not change

Maliciously remove the Chinese

Unless tomorrow there is an incident in Huangyan Island, the ownership may change; I know Huangyan Island unlike China's other controlled islands in the South China Sea have built artificial islands, so regardless of both the political and military forces, but simply to consider one only by For a long time it is possible to say that boat control is unstable. However, since 2012, China has steadily controlled the island. The most active conflict state is also the last country that controlled the island. The Philippines has been unable to access the island. OSM expressed through the borders of the objective and practical control What is wrong?

OSM is the need to show the current actual situation, such as a county was canceled, I will delete; a rapid development and construction of a city in China, I will draw on the road, may be a few years after the planned changes have demolished there It is possible.
Not because the place is controversial and complex, we can not express the current situation through the country-borrower relation.

However, it is enough to comply with a stable control. Nothing in the world is immutable. It is a fact that China has stabilized control of Huangyan Island since 2012, and if you say the ownership change happened on the island a few days ago We may need to wait and see a few months no problem, but this is already a very stable long-term control.

This is a district-level unit in China's administrative divisions, including the Xisha Islands, which are actually under the control of China, and the Nansha Islands as a whole is not the same concept. Please do not arbitrarily modify it.

Please do not destroy

I disagree with the fact that the prime minister can basically confirm the actual control of China's South China Sea islands through references to wikipedia. For example, Huangyan Island is a stable stop for military vessels in Beijing and no other state forces can enter, and this is from 2012 to the present Therefore, there is no problem marking China as a border country.

At present, the islands in the South China Sea are basically operated according to who controls the country marked. Although the islands will always be in dispute, the control rights basically belong to the same country for a long time and basically do not have any problems.

我不同意，首相通过wikipedia的参考文献基本可以确认中国南海岛屿的实际控制，比如黄岩岛是北京方面有军方船只稳定停靠在内，其它国家势力无法进入，而且这是从2012年开始到现在了，因此标出国界归属中国没有什么问题。

而现在中国南海的岛屿基本也是按照谁控制就标注为哪个国家的关系来操作，因为岛屿虽然会一直有争议，但是控制权基本长时间稳定属于同一个国家，所以这样没有任何问题。

This sea area is actually controlled by China. There is no dispute whether it is one thing or the other. Actual control is one thing.

There is actually an island, please do not destroy.

另外不要吧堤坝和河流边界线重合

请不要吧学校的边界和 行政边界重合

行政村才能使用village 自然村用 hamlet，另外镇关系只能放边界和中心点，别的东西别放进去。

osm.wiki/China_tagging_guidelines

什么玩意- -

Sorry, maybe this part should not add borders.

i dont like add this tag - -

source? idont know how say but i know 建设街道 node is in relation/7400265 inside is OK

用ID 就先简单点编辑 你删掉了一些东西