Hello Again,

In your changeset, you updated the ISO 3166-2 for Shabwah Governorate (Relation ID 383896) as YE-SD. The ISO 3166-2 is in fact YE-SH. See here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:YE

I will go ahead and update the data. But I wanted to let you know of this.

Best,

Kristen

Heya again,

for the Lahij Governorate (Relation ID: 383892), you added the ISO 3166-2 as YE-HU. The Lahij Governorate has an ISO 3166-2 of YE-LA. See here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:YE

Anyway, i wanted to let you know this and that I will update the data in OSM.

Best,

Kristen

Hello!

I noticed when you created the relation for Federal Dependencies (Relation ID: 3399075), you updated the ISO 3166-2 to VE-Z. I was doing research, and it appears the Federal Dependencies has an ISO 3166-2 of VE-W. See here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:VE

Anyway, I will go ahead and update the data. But i wanted to let you know!

Best,

Kristen

Hello,

I noticed in your changeset you updated the ISO 3166-2 code of Al Ghuwariyah (Relation ID: 27334) to QA-MS. Al Ghuwariyah *was* a municipality under Qatar, but has since been merged with Al Kawr (ISO 3166-2 = QA-KH).

I am thinking maybe we update the ISO 3166-2 for Al Ghuwariyah (Relation ID: 27334) to QA-KH and then figure out how to merge the boundaries.

Thoughts?

Best,

Kristen

Hello,

I just wanted to let you know that the ISO 3166-2 for Caaguazú (Relation ID: 389890) is PY-5 not PY-6. I'll go ahead and update the data. I just wanted to let you know!

Best,

Kristen

Hello,

I wanted to let you know that the ISO 3166-2 for Batangas (Relation ID: 1504427) is PH-BTG, not PH-BTN as you indicated in this changeset. Anyway, I will update the data myself. I just wanted to let you konw.

Best,

Kristen

Hello. I noticed in your edits that you updated the ISO 3166-2 code for the Lékoumou (Relation ID: 3220592) to CG-7. In reality the ISO 3166-2 code for Lékoumou is supposed to be CG-2.

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:CG

Anyway. I'll go ahead and update the ISO 3166-2 code for the Lékoumou district.

Just wanted to let you know.

Best,

Kristen

G'day,

I noticed in your changeset that you updated the ISO 3166-2 code for Samtse District (Relation ID: 3899614). It appears that the Samtse District has an ISO 3166-2 code of BT-14, not BT-12. BT-12 is an ISO-3166-2 code of Chukha District (Relation ID: 3899603).

Anyway, I will update the ISO 3166-2 code for Samtse District. Here are references:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:BT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samtse_District

fixed here:
osm.org/changeset/34601896

thanks

Hello. In this changeset. You edited the following relation: osm.org/relation/4695424

One of the Ways for this relation have been deleted: osm.org/way/173633422

I am not familiar with this part of the world, do you know if you could update the relation?

Thanks for explaining the edit. Have a nice day!

Best,

Kristen

Brian,

Our data integrity check picked up the deletion of the Ontario International Airport way (209864878) last night. What was the reason for the removal and creation of an identical way (changeset/28104067)?

There was not any comments in either changeset. Just curious.

Best,

Kristen

Thanks for responding. I'll go ahead and revert this changeset.

If you have any questions about editing feel free to contact me or post in the OSM Talk US mailing list (https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us)

Best,

Kristen

I suspect this changeset was commited (deleted OSM way) was made on accident like this one.

osm.org/changeset/27705328

I'll go ahead and revert it for you. Thanks again for responding to my other changeset comment!

Kristen

Hello,

This changeset affected the relation that represents the boundary of Denver International Airport (DEN). Since this changeset was committed, the boundaries for DEN *do not* render in OSM and because the relation is no longer a valid multi-polygon.

It isn't clear why the deletions were made. Before reverting the changeset, I am writing to ask you to you shed some light on these activities. I would prefer working with you to re-construct the DEN boundary relation via changeset reversion.

Thanks.

Best,

Kristen

Hello,

This changeset affected the relation that represents the boundary of Denver International Airport (DEN). Since this changeset was committed, the boundaries for DEN *do not* render in OSM and because the relation is no longer a valid multi-polygon.

It isn't clear why the deletions were made. Before reverting the changeset, I am writing to ask you to you shed some light on these activities. I would prefer working with you to re-construct the DEN boundary relation via changeset reversion.

Thanks.

Best,

Kristen

resolved with fellow user. some deduplication activity associated with node 158326597.

(cross-contacted via OSM website messaging service)

Hello,

I just noticed the node (point) representing the location of Philadelphia was deleted in your subject changeset. I am writing to understand why the node was deleted. The node is used for map display by other OSM users and shouldn't have been deleted.

I am assuming the deleting edit was unintended. Since you're a relatively new person (one edit). I would like volunteer and revert the OSM edit for you. As courtesy I wanted to sync up with you beforehand. Hence this message.

Best,

Kristen