In the document you have provided it clearly states that José Antonio Páez, exists. The tags you have removed are restored, and official_name=Municipio José Antonio Páez represent the official name. Per my conversation with the Venezuela community, name is not always official one, but the one people commonly use for some feature.

alain2003 can you share these files so I can jump in and help fix the boundaries???

Sorry if I have upset you, but we were lacking the info that you already got a hard no as an answer. Can you just reply here when all the reverts are done, so we can jump in a and fix broken things. If you want you can also use https://salmon-grass-0d758fe03.4.azurestaticapps.net/ to find broken boundaries.

Thanks for being so agile about obtaining the data.
Happy mapping!

Please, please, please stop reverting the changesets, you are making mess on the map, now all neighboring countries relations are also broken. Lets discuss this with OCHA to see if they give a vaiwer in the next week and with DWG about doing proper reverts.

Hi 98Ujm,
I have noticed that you have changed admin_level tag in lot of relations in Mauritius.

Can you explain the change in osm.org/relation/13476401 since per osm.wiki/Tag:boundary=administrative?uselang=en-GB Vacoas-Phoenix, Quatre Bornes, Beau Bassin-Rose Hill, Curepipe should be admin_level=6

Hi VerneJules,
I think you have not made any valuable edits here.
You have changed name to "Isla de Creta" and put former name tag as alt_name=Creta.

This relation already has place=island tag so adding "Isla de" prefix in name tag is needles. The name of the island is Creta.

Same would be with, for example, some residential street, if the name=Jon Doe, and you put name=Street of Jon Doe it has no sense

Can you, please, revert your changes?

Maybe you could reverse them, so to put name=Creta and alt_name:es=Isla de Creta but still makes no value.

Same story goes for all your other edits in the region.

Hi Tommybara,
I saw that you have added lot of label roles to admin relations. Why are these not added as admin_centre roles?

Hi, I see that you have deleted relation of Nayarit. Can you please fix this one?

I will not change it, I just noticed that this relation you have created is the only one with this approach. I saw community added all as relations with the coastlines
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1Wbv

Hi Hassan Arara,
I have seen that you have added Assoungaha as admin_level=4. Can you explain me this because on the available resources it states that Assoungaha is a subregion of Ouaddai, not a separate region.

I do agree on that, but can that be describer that if you are creating a relation it should be a polygon like here osm.org/relation/6166030.
It is not a big work to use current coastlines and create a mulitpolygon relation. What do you think about reworking Hardangerfjorden relation to be as polygon?

Hi MikleOSM,
why have you removed both residential area and town polygon for Кожевниково

Hi NKA,
I have seen that you created a relation osm.org/relation/18208522 for Hardangerfjorden which contains smaller fjords forming the largen one, but per osm.wiki/Tag:bay=fjord this should not be done on a relation. It should either be a new way or a polygon. What is your opinion? Should be done with another way?

Hi sergej zhiliackov,
I see that you have put some ways as a part of relation with subarea as a role. You should first create subarea relations and put relations as subarea. In a way that you have done it is not correct. Can you please correct this?

It is not a first time, I have already done this once, and informed the user, but hotosm project has a lot of editors and this turns out to be repeating problem.
I will revert this

I have reverted this changeset because it broke a lot of administrative relations, for example whole East Timor relation was removed. Please be more careful with the relations in your future edits.

Happy mapping

Hi Sal73x,
I see that you have started one admin_level=7 relation, but it is incomplete. Can you finish the work or remove it if this is incorrect edit.

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?