I have fixed them, but they are broken again, and there is some discussion on another changeset osm.org/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?

Hi แดนสรวง วงศ์สรรคกร,
I saw that you have updated primary to trunk. From the perspective of importance of the road, this could be trunk, but the condition of the road does not meet that requirement. I think it would be more precise to revert this change back to primary.

Hi MK1,
this change https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/448721029 does not loot to be correct, this square type of borders. Can you recheck your edit?

Hi,
question about this Tomb, it says that Turkiey has authority over it, but it is under Syria territory. I don't think this should represent Turkiey borders. Also if you still insist on this change, please include it as inner member in all Syrian administrative divisions like you did for the new location of the Tomb

Hi Garmin-User,
per [Country_specific_values](osm.wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative#Country_specific_values_%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8Bof_the_key_admin_level=*) there should not be admin_level=9 in Armenia, and Yerevan districts should be admin_level=5. I agree that these districts are not the same as municipalities but are having administration which is under City of Yerevan so I do not thing your change here is correct.

Hi Russ,
is this Amazon Web Services datacentre, because there is no info about this is belonging to Amazon?

I have reverted this changeset because you have created a large number of overlapping coastlines that were already present on OSM. Please review your work and not to make this type of mistake (I think it was unintentional but I just wanted to point this out to you).

Happy mapping

Hi Q8Maps. Thanks for updating boundaries. Can you please use subarea as a role for members that you currently map as inner members, because blocks are subareas of these relations, but when you add them as inner, this means they are excluded from the relation.

As you mentioned with tag [place=island](osm.wiki/Tag:place%3Disland) it should not be used on a relation but to be drawn as a counterclockwise area (because water is always on the right hand side). Relation should be created when the coastline is split into several smaller segments, for example, for creating smaller admin divisions or coastline of the island has more than 2000 nodes (for very detailed or large islands). Then you need a relation for the whole island. In some cases, the relation is used to group some close islands which have the same name but are not archipelagos.
Another thing I want to point out: I am not saying that what you did is a unique example, but per OSM Wiki and some general mapping rules, we should not use relations for these simple small islands. I just stumped upon your edits because there is a fair amount of them, and I was in the region at the moment.
Also, read this: Relations are not categories - OpenStreetMap Wiki

Yes, I am familiar with that, but why have you created relations for islands that are already tagged on a polygon?

Hi Bayu Adi Styawan,
You have deleted couple of administrative relations. Can you tell me if this was by mistake or you are planning to add new ones?

Hi osminng,
you have created a lot of admin_level=7 relations while creating island multipolygons of islands in Greece. Why have you been creating relations of islands while they were already tagged on a way?

Hi manahel mahmedfaruok nazmi,
can you explain why you have deleted so many relations in this changeset?

Thanks, that answers my question, got it.

Like this one osm.org/relation/17728786

It is admin_level=6 which has area that covers containing admin_level=8 relations.

Is this intention of your edit or there is no more admin_level=8 relation here?

Just curious, if new municipalities are formed by merging old municipalities and some communities, as stated, should then admin_level=6 relation contain some wider area? This change looks like same area just got upgraded to higher authority level. By my understanding this specific relation is admin_level=8 and new admin_level=6 relation should be created. What is your opinion on this?

Hi 5m4u9,
can you recheck way 849362440 it does not look like a roundabout

Hi CaptainCarte,

I have seen that you have put note: DO NOT MERGE, this coastline segment is part of a maproulette task that will break if merged on way 1289692139

I do understand that you may have some issues with MapRoulette, but this way you are breaking coastlines. I have corrected the coastline in this small segment, I hope your MR task is still working, but if not, do not revert it since it will break coastlines once again.