Hi Abdhmir,
I see that you have removed admin_level=6 relation and created new with admin_level=5 value. Can you also add admin_level=6 relations for this area?

Can you check your edit for Tanauan, it looks suspicious that is admin_level=4 since it is already under osm.org/relation/1504427

This does not seem like correct admin_level, since it is already under admin_level=4 relation osm.org/relation/1504761 Can you double check your edit?

Hi
I have reverted this changeset since it broke a lot of boundaries and created wrong entities. Please, be more careful while editing the map.

Happy mapping!

Hi HansjMr,
can you please add proper roles to a relation members of the administration boundaries that you are editing in this area (inner- outer)

Hi dcskobuffs,
It was a while ago, but what we did was connecting routes to ferry terminals and piers. I remember this area, and yes, these were some strange routes for which we could not find a lot of information's, but these were more touristic (observation) routes than actual transportation routes (https://parqueslosrios.cl/sitio/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/psantuario_.pdf). Some were described just as round trip with no clear start-end or stop points. I am sorry, but can't help you with more info but you might try https://parqueslosrios.cl/sitio/sn-carlos-anwandter/

Hi Hidoo00,
sorry for the typo and thanks for fixing this. Happy Mapping!!!

Hi GuardedBear,

I see that you have added admin_level=6 tag to Wasp Island. Now it turns out that Wasp Island is admin_level=6 by itself, then same admin level as part of Unincorporated South Coast and also same admin level as part of Unincorporated New South Wales. It looks unnatural that one island is part of three boundaries of the same admin_level. Can you recheck this? If it is unincorporated than it is strange to be admin_level=6 by itself for sure

Thank you for fixing this. Happy mapping

Hi blinin,
I have a question about deleting Prishtina relation on admin_level=8. Why? Yes, there is one on admin_level=6 which is representing Municipality of Prishtina, but the one on admin_level=8 should remain to represent the city itself. What is your thought about this?

Hi,
can you explain why have you removed Đà Lạt city node 369486906

Hi rahal2022,
can you please fix osm.org/relation/12430378 and
osm.org/relation/12430379 which are now broken after this changeset

Hi fserges,
thanks for the comment. User Grass-snake already made corrections, you can check his changeset also

Hi Grass-snake,
thanks for clarification. I have tried to fix overlaps on same admin level after user Mazda05 did some changes, so the only logical fix was to lower its level. Your local knowledge is highly appreciated, and now everything seems aligned so thanks for the extra fix.

Happy mapping!

Aleksandar

Hi Editor006,
are you sure about this change form admin_level=8 to 9 since it looks incorrect per osm.wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative#11_admin_level_values_for_specific_countries

Thanks for the info about forum discussion, I have replyed over there

Thanks!!! I have added place tags to relations.

Hi Violaine_Do,

I have seen on couple of your changesets that you are changing boundary=land_area to boundary=administrative.

The problem that is happening is that now we have 2 relations for the same administrative unit, one with just land area and another one including water area.

Is there any consensus withing community about how admin_level=6 boundaries should be represented on OSM?

If there is one, can you, please, remove duplicate boundaries?

One of the examples of duplicate boundaries:

osm.org/relation/16120494

osm.org/relation/1363094

Hi Koreller, thanks for the reply, I do respect the knowledge of apm-wa and I am fully aware of what he did in Turkmenistan and OSM. Hats off for that. And to be clear, I am not arguing, I am just debating the way of tagging in order to make it precise and functional. I agree with apm-wa fully about Ashgabat not being the province, however, there are lot of similar examples around the OSM world where these "equivalent" things are taken into consideration and mapped with same administrative level because function on the ground is the same.

This is why I have sugested adding one more tag, place=city and place=province to make clear what is the type of the place but per my opinion and as I understood your comment Ashgabat has same administrative power as provinces, therefore I suggest keeping admin_level tag unchanged.

Sorry if my comments were understood as arguing or disrispecfull towards Mr Allan Mustard. I admire his enthusiasm and what he did for Turkmenistan OSM

apm-wa, as Koreller stated "City with the status of a province" qualifies it to be tagged with the same admin_level tag on OSM. It does not promote it to be a province, just levels its administrative power. All provinces have welaýaty in their name tag. Ashgabat is a city and no one claims it is a province. There are lot of examples similar to this one accross the OSM where the same tagging has been applied, usually with capital city of the country, which has 2 administrative relations, one that showed its level of power, and another one with the same members which describes it as a city.

Also, Ashgabat is further divided into districts, as provinces.

Will adding place=city and place=province on these admin_level=4 relations in order to distinguish differences be good enough solution?