Even boroughs of NYC use this tag, so clearly it is not the regular meaning of "suburb" as in the dictionary. I'm also not very convinced by your argument that "communes cannot be tagged as place=village because many communes have large populations". place=village does not indicate anything regarding population. Many communes are mountainous areas, and clearly applying place=town for those doesn't make any sense.

I think you should read the description of place=suburb tag here place=suburb?uselang=en

Hi! Could you explain the reason for applying the tag “place=city” to the wards. Since it’s pretty obvious that they are NOT cities.

Cầu Gò Găng vẫn chỉ có 1 đơn nguyên. Xin bạn hãy xem thật kỹ dự án trước khi vẽ.

I also find this to be a misuse of tags. I don’t see the point of adding areas and population here in the map?

Đường vừa được điều chỉnh lý trình, nhập vào đường Đặng Đại Độ. Bạn vui lòng cập nhật thông tin: https://thanhnien.vn/tphcm-dat-ten-moi-cho-60-tuyen-duong-185250724100127187.htm

Có quậy thì quậy cái gì hợp lý xíu? Bình Chánh là TP hồi nào vậy?

Có thể đừng sửa bậy nữa được không bạn?

Creating a historical boundary, and then make a note "THIS IS NOT A HISTORICAL BOUNDARY". What kind of contribution is this?

If you keep creating nonsense "historic boundaries" like this again, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to report you to the Volunteer Team.

You reverted other mappers’ contributions just because of your “obsession” with “historic” boundaries. And the “products” you left are hundreds of broken boundaries that people have to fix for you.

It is nonsense bc I don’t see any difference between your “Tỉnh Cao Bằng cũ” and the current Cao Bằng provincial boundaries, so I don’t really see the point of having “Tỉnh Cao Bằng cũ”. So is “Tỉnh Quảng Ninh cũ”.

I don't find such edits as being "dirty". On the other hand, I find your edits to be quite annoying.

Would you mind indicating which Satellite you used? "Esri World Imagery" clearly indicates a bridge here.

Cu Chi was never part of Tay Ninh, nor Can Gio be part of Ba Ria-Vung Tau. Previously I edited old HCMC to include these two districts, but you reverted this.

Please explain the reason for this. If I don’t see your response by tomorrow, I will proceed and delete all of these boundary=historic because they are clearly incorrect.

Can you explain the reason for assigning former Cu Chi district to former Tay Ninh province, and former Can Gio district to Ba Ria - Vung Tau? Keep in mind that boundary=historic is not meant for "creativity".

Do you mean they will automatically be imported to OHM based to the tag boundary=historic ?

Yes! And doesn’t that also agree with what you stated earlier (at least partially): “these boundaries will linger in people's mind for quite a long time (at least down to the districts)”

Mắc gì tên node cứ phải bỏ chữ "phường", "xã" vô chi vậy?

I think I made my point very clear:
*Old districts —> Yes, keep them as boundary=historic. And yes when I improve the boundaries, will also improve the old district boundaries.
*Old communes —> No, too many of them, most of which are not well-known.

Anyway, I will be drawing from the southern provinces northwards. It will probably take more than 2 years so I won’t be touching your beloved Quảng Ninh communes until then.