Hi 007Transforme,

If this is intended for internal tracking purposes, it may be worth reconsidering the workflow. This approach can be misleading and may lead to confusion. Internal tracking is typically handled through personal spreadsheets rather than comments that imply changes were made when they were not.

All best Milan

Hello Taya,

reply is already on changeset/177887381, so we can have one discussion on this issue.

All best Milan

Hi Dani,

According to the satellite image, the Rondo Kuning area appears to be a forest, with no administrative value.
Can you please check that relation again - relation/20102102
Thanks in advance Milan

Hi Pavel
The maxspeed tag should not be used together with maxspeed:backward and maxspeed:forward, as this results in incorrect tagging.
Please remove the redundant tags because they duplicate the data. TomTom already supports tagging with maxspeed:backward and maxspeed:forward, so the maxspeed tag itself is unnecessary.
Currently, you have maxspeed:forward=40, but according to your tagging, maxspeed:forward=50, which is incorrect and could mislead drivers into thinking they are allowed to drive faster than the legal limit.

This "way/1368055106" is member of both relations: Bekasi and Kab Bekasi boundary, and he is not not in relation of Kab Bogor.
Maybe jast need time to osm.org to update rendering. All three relations are closed.
Kad Bekasi - relation/14765575
Bogor - relation/14762112
Bekasi - relation/14509733
I have a question. Is this place admin centar for "node/318882209" Bekasi? If it is, it should not be mapped as "label" but as an administrative center. The label tag is used if it only needs to render the name, but if the node representing the place is also an administrative center, that node should be tagged as admin_center within the relation.
For Kab Bogor also missing admin centar inside relation, I assume that he also has his administrative center according to the way the relationship is tagged.

Can you give me the ID numbers of the relationships you are having problems with so I can see why it is showing as broken relations?

Hi,
there are more relationships that you broke and that need to be fixed.
Bhakti Jaya - way/791085943
Babakan
Setu
Pondok Petir
Bojong Kamal
Cirarab
Babat
Karang Tengah
Mekarwangi
Dangdang
Desa Kertasari
Pasir Putih
Bedahan
Pondok Jaya
Bojong Pondok Terong
Cipayung Jaya
Pondok Benda
Kelurahan Leuwinanggung
Kelurahan Tapos
Kelurahan Cilangkap
Pengasinan
Curug
Jatirasa
Duren Seribu
Duren Mekar
Thanks in advance for fixing this issues.

Thanks.
Just pay attention to the surrounding relations. Thanks.
They also need to be fixed.
Thanks again.

Relations cannot remain open, thus creating errors on the map.
If it is not yet finished then you should not create new borders yet.
I left you a list of all the relations that were broken by one of your edits.
Can I ask you to go through them again and fix them because they cannot remain broken.

This is list of broken relation.
Legok
Jambe
Cisauk
Pagedangan
Kab Sukabumi
Cianjur
Kab Bekasi
Sawangan
Cipayung
Bekasi
Pamulang
Kecamatan Tapos
Lebak
Kabupaten Tangerang
Can you please fix them all.

Hi,
Can I ask you to end this relationship since it has remained broken?

Hi,
Can you then finish everything, since they are still open.
And if you can write to me which borders are connected.
I will not respond to all comments, 1 is enough for us to communicate.

It seems to me that everything is fine as it is right now.

I will check him...

Thanks, it looked to me on the satellite image as if the road went around the building.
Thanks for the correction, as a local mapper you have more information.

Fixing broken boundaries #MSFTOpenMaps
I accidentally left the wrong comment.

Issue is on this node - node/13108234205
This ways way/1425977630 and way/1425977644 are created illegal intersection between members in relation.

Hi, you created a relation that intersects itself at this location: 20.9383585, 106.0164407
Should this relation contain two separate polygons?

Thanks for the correction. I checked the information, the street should be named "Uudenkyläntie" not "Nybyntie".
Thanks again.