Can you point me to which page you are referring to? New Harbor was village, you have change it to neighbourhood, but it does not look like one.

I saw that you made some changes from hamlets to neighbourhoods, can you tell me more why, since these look more like hamlets, which was tag before you made a change

Hi cmxn.
I saw that you have put Bay Harbor as neighbourhood, but on Mapillary https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=45.364014018174004&lng=-85.01739947273802&z=19.9&pKey=599023915596991&focus=photo&x=0.25584480937977394&y=0.6126571653854522&zoom=1.2925026399155226 it says The Village at Bay Harbor. Maybe place=village would be more precise?

Hi Takyk,
I have seen that you have changed admin_level for Arkadag şäheri from 6 to 4. I can not access the webpage you have added as a source. Can you please recheck your edit and if this still needs to be admin_level=4 relation, then adjust the boundaries of other admin_level=4 relations, now there is an overlap.

Hi jptolosa,
per Wiki it looks like all islands are included ("consists of a string of bedrock islands"), but also states that it is a mainland, so I am not sure which claim is more accurate. If you think islands should not be part of the relation you can exclude them

I have seen that on https://gis.ny.gov/civil-boundaries/ but there is also part of Mamaroneck that needs to be added to that relation, and the third part is that Tiger data is showing different polygon so since it was not clear what is final solution, I have just fixed the broken boundaries in a way it is functional. Please if you have the knowledge of how this relation should look like fix the members of the existing relation.

Sorry if this caused some trouble on your side, but there was broken relation so I made correction just to make it functional.

Hi adas,
can you fix Barzowice admin_level=8 relation, it is not closed polygon, since you have created Rusinowo and Wicie you might know the correct borders?

Hi BerserkRaul,

You have deleted boundary within this changeset. Can you fix it?

Hi 1T-money,
can you explain why you have changed admin_level=5 to admin_level=6 in this changeset, since per osm.wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative#10_admin_level_values_for_specific_countries admin_level=5 are Districts (Arrondissements) and admin_level=6 are Search-And-Rescue sectors (temporary).

I think you should revert your changes

It is OK to realign them, but you have created double coastlines with lot of overlaps. Just realign existing geometries and be carefull not to break any relations that migh have coastline as a member, usualy these are administrative ones.

Santanaloba53,
please remove all population data that you have wrongly added in all your changesets

Please stop adding coastlines you are making overlaps and doubling existing coastlines. I will revert this changeset and all others with the same issue .

Hi Koistinenpäivää,
can you check osm.org/way/129210241 this should be building not natural=water

Hi Lennardderudder,

This was done in communication with the community. These are statistical boundaries; some were added with SETTLEMENT and SETTL_NAME tags then we wanted to fill missing data and to unify the tagging. At that moment, the community was against adding name tags, so we agreed to change the original tags to ref:settlement and ref:name accordingly. I see now that ref:settlement has been changed to ref:IE:census2015 which makes sense.

It was a part of adding OSi National Statistical Boundaries - 2015 after we obtained the waiver osm.wiki/PermissionsIreland

If you have agreed within the community to change it to another tag, I will be glad to help.

I do not agree, if you use overpass you will see that useage of admin_level in combination with boundary=historic is widely used, while was:admin_level or disused:admin_level is sporadic

I agree that this might not be the best solution, but it is not wrong to have admin_level on boundary=historic because it gives you more info what that historic boundary was. I would not delete it so easily just because someone could make an error.

There are lot of errors where administrative tag is deleted just because ID editor has "not so friendly" user interface but still we can correct the issues. There is a fair amount of tools for catching and fixing these errors so I would not go on removing some tags just to prevent some things. Data should be removed just in cases when it is totaly wrong. In this case I thing that admin_level tag should be restored.

Hi Garmin-User,
can you tell me why you have removed admin_level=4 from some historic boundaries? This is useful info and that is mentioned on osm.wiki/Tag:boundary=historic?uselang=en-GB

Takođe, bilo bi korisno da se pridružiš OpenStreetMap RS Telegram grupi radi brže komunikacije i smernica, pošto ima dosta stvari koje bi trebalo da ispraviš https://t.me/osm_sr

hvala na odgovoru, ne stavljamo prosečne brzine, već koje su zvanična ograničenja. Molim te da prepraviš sve koje su tako stavljane. Takođe, obrati pažnju na uslovna ograničenja, ona koja imaju dopunsku tablu, tipa ograničenje je 80 ali je po snegu 40, postoji način da se taguje, ako ti treba pomoć piši

Can you fix the geometries, level, and other attributes in this changeset, looks broken now