No problem, I will fix it, just wanted to double-check. Thanks

Hi Mohnish Landge,
you have broken 2 relations in this changeset
Bangalore North (10594855, v5)
Yelahanka taluku (14934841, v3)

Was this unintentional or there is any reason for this?

Can you specify the source for MZ Oglečeva? As far I know this is not a correct border, the one you have named and started creating relation for

Hi, I saw that you have reverted the Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan border, but the current state is also not correct. On the changeset that you commented on before doing this, you mentioned that you should be informed if someone is trying to fix the issue. I would like to make changes to their relations as they were before the first vandalism happened. Is this OK with DWG or do we need some more ground truth? Currently, we have self-crossing boundaries osm.org/way/809037412

Thanks for notifying me, I did this one by accident, sorry, I will pay more attention in the future (I usually do, but will double check in the future)

I have removed the coastline tag since it is not used properly. I have not deleted the way itself, can you describe what you wanted to tag or we should just delete it?

Hi archie, we have done a check of all 46130 highways that have been created/modified by our editors in Sweden and I can confirm that this one was the only error.

We have removed one more road that we have added just because we were uncertain of its existence on the field osm.org/changeset/131110158 so maybe someone local user can add it.

I see no reason for such resentment, but you certainly have a right to it. All edits on OSM can be verified by all users around the planet, but only a few users actually do this, so that's why I said THANK YOU for keeping an eye, but you certainly have the right to understand it however you want. I don't want to deepen the unnecessary discussion that deviated from the topic, which is the quality of the map. When I finish the check I will inform you about the results.

I will do the check also ASAP and inform you of the findings

Hi archie, thanks for reporting this issue.
The road has now been removed.
However, this is not vandalism, this is an accidental copy and offset of the road osm.org/way/111490069
There was no intention to create a wrong road on the map, it was a pure accident, which I agree should not happen, but it did.
We are not doing any automated imports, so human error can be expected. We are running checks after we finish the task and this would be picked up and would be removed, but thanks for keeping an eye, we really appreciate the community involvement.
I have checked all roads created or edited by magrej and have found only this one to be an error, so I would not call this a quality issue, but sure an issue that has been now solved.
BTW magrej is my colleague and he is a huge fan of Sweden, he has been traveling a lot of times to different places across the country and he even learned the language, so feel free to contact him and send him the community-created tasks, so we can jump in and help.

Hope this answered all the questions, but if you have more concerns feel free to comment.

Best regards,
Aleksandar Matejevic

Your edit broke the Beijing relation osm.org/relation/912940

Can you please fix this?

While I agree that this is an oversight on the part of the editor and that we should double-check before making the change, I strongly disagree with this way of labeling a road segment with a tunnel name.
There is a tunnel:name tag that should be used. Also, there is a variant for bridge:name

Here is the wiki documentation:
https://viki.openstreetmap.org/viki/Kei:tunnel#Hov_to_map

Also, this tag is used quite a bit on OSM
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keis/tunnel%3Aname

Would it be in the interest of the community to map all these names correctly?

Can you check the intersection Avenida Juan Domingo Peron and Camino del Peru, user cleuco created some strange ways instead of circular junction which should be remodeled. I saw you was doing the changes, so you may have local knowledge

Hi stevea,
as I have said, I just corrected the member roles, but boundary looked stranged, so this is why I have put this for someone to review. Thanks for the info, but one question: Should we remove this relation completely since the data for CALFire is not compatible with the OSM one, or to just correct it to fire_district.

Also osm.org/relation/1343460

Please fix the relation osm.org/relation/2182325

Perfectly fine step by step.

No need to apologize, you have actually added very valuable info, we just need to polish it up :)

OK, I think I got what has happened. The problem was overpass (ok thing to do), you would have to do one more thing before creating relations and that is download all members of the existing relations, so you will then get elements to put in new admin 6 relations. With overpass, you have created a separate layer with just new relations, so it created duplicated ways. You can also select ways you have downloaded with overpass and use Download along function in JOSM. Do one by one and upload, it will be easy to fix if something goes wrong. If you need asistance I am available for helping

For example, there is a osm.org/way/852437187/ and when you created a new admin_level=6 boundary relation, you actually created a duplicate osm.org/way/1113702779.

And there are a lot of them, for each relation that you have created you have made duplicates of existing ways that are now overlapping. Old ways have admin_level=5 and other relations, but your new ways have just admin_level=6 relations. For example, try to move node osm.org/node/10188822374 and you will see that there are overlapping ways underneath

Hi again, can you please check these boundaries, for example osm.org/relation/14761717 and fix them