Clear, thanks, but what about osm.org/relation/1469659 is this ok?

Thanks for the detailed answer. You have entered latest official numbers, I will recheck a bit more for a correct value since city did grew in size since 2004.

You have put the lower population number on Node 572557865 which represents Hama, looks like a huge drop of population which is not in line with the census data. Can you fix this?

I have found out the issue and reverted the change, corrected tagging to prevent future mistakes

Hi fserges,
why have you changed admin_level=6 to 5 for the raions arround Sevastopolj, while all other raions on Crimea adre admin_level=6

Awesome!!! Thank you

Hi ilias_
I see that you have removed some relations due to that document you have put, but can you please add rest what are new admin_level=6 relations, now this is the only part of Morocco that has not admin_level=6 boundary

Hi Nozrak,
Do you thing that admin_level=5 may be too high for Chakma Autonomous District Council? It should be part of Lawngtlai district so previous admin_level=6 seems like more appropriate.

Hi Rippledot,
Tahulandang admin_level=5 relation osm.org/relation/18226441overlaps with osm.org/relation/14907627 which already covers that area.

Can you check what is the valid state and adjust admin_level value or modify relations so there is no overlap?

Hi Ksusha Zhegolko,
are you sure about this change from admin_level=6 to admin_level=8. I do understand your point, but since these are city districts of the Toshkent, they should be in the same "rank" as other districts in Uzbekistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subdivisions_of_Uzbekistan . Or is there special district for the Toshkent, because currently it looks like no admin2 level exist in the area of the capital

Good change

Thanks for a very fast reply. Happy mapping

Hi aq123,
Can you confirm that this pool name=Fitness is correct, it looks like descriptive one

Hi muralito,
I think there is a potential mistake with some river names in this changeset. You have added name:es=Arroyo de la Invernada to osm.org/way/116896246 , osm.org/way/1303176906 and osm.org/way/1303176905 which seems not to be correct both per IGM, IGBE and Brazilian Army Topographic Maps. Can you explain your change? Also osm.org/way/116895878/ has the similar issue. I think that these mentioned rivers are creating Arroio Invernada but should not have that name

Hi Tellurium,
please do not add administrative buildings in relations, admin_center role is for the place, not for the building.

Hi smeòrach,
I have a question about Leverburgh . Should the name tag be Leverburgh instead of An t-Òb because that is old name, renamed to Leverburgh in 1921. I agree that Gaelic name shoud remain the same but maybe name=Leverburgh and old_name=An t-Òb would be better solution?

Hi Kilkenni, are you sure that name for suburb node 3252578372 is "Химчистка"

Thanks for the explanation

Can you please fix the boundaries, now it is even more paradoxical

Hi Herman Lee,
I was trying to fix broken boundaries after edits of Wanglang11 and Sparkbright using available resources. There is a territorial dispute in this area so both sides will be unhappy in some way but at least everything was functional. You did a revert and made things even worse, now everything is broken: China, Tibet, Bhutan, India, subareas... Instead of revert you could just adjust ways within relations to reflect correct state. Can you please clean up this mess?