So its name wasn't incorrect, since people don't have access to the grave and in the first look they see Zarih.

Thanks. And what about the node? Same rule applies on it? It seems different.

1- I have question to know what rule you used for fixing them. I can follow it for my possible edits in Iraq.
2- yes, a little. More Fashi, less Iraqi. Iranians read Arabic in school for some years, it's not that complete but helps and depends to students.
3- you can directly answer the questions to save time. Anyone asks sth, have read your comment before.

Where those communications held? Could you provide a link so I follow this and future talks? thanks

سلام :)
من خیلی مسیر حمل و نقل عمومی ویرایش نکردم. ولی این آموزش از سایت اسماند رو قبلا دیده بودم. شاید به دردتون بخوره:
https://osmand.net/blog/guideline-pt

Hello LockOnGuy, thanks for fixing things.

Can you elaborate on name change of following items? I've read your comment but I didn't understand which part of you comment relates to which part of the edits in this changeset.

osm.org/node/9722628289
osm.org/way/1058116494
osm.org/relation/14116182

Thanks

> on border levels, you need to discuss the matter with the community[...]

Even you confessed previously that on the ground Iran has the full control over 3 Iranian islands but yet you try to put the claims as reality on the map.
When you tried "to map claims as real" borders or part of real boundaries did you make any discussion with the community, specially Iranians?
What actually deserve a discussion, are claims.

> Wrong, see again.
I checked them again. In osm.org/changeset/69606798 if you scroll down the page, you see only relation/9520136 which is a "boundary=claim". No other relations are modified with this changeset.

Also in osm.org/changeset/118277832 if you scroll down the page, you'll find two newly created ways, two newly created relations and some nodes.
No relations of UAE boundaries are modified.

> No, you said you have points or notes[...]
I didn't referred to those points of myself when I said this:
"About my changeset here, what I changed actually is discussed[...]"
but I referred to your words that you accepted to leave claims of real world (UAE claims) as claims on the map (boundary=claim) and don't map them as real (boundary=administrative) to avoid overlapping between countries (Iran and UAE).

Hello LockOnGuy,

As far as I understand, the "border lines" of these islands in Persian Gulf, added to UAE states starting osm.org/changeset/120185536 , 3 months ago by yourself. Even if it was 2 years ago, we can correct things when we see them.

Both changesets you linked, only added boundary=claim and have not touched the UAE states.
Just relations for claims are mapped without touching real boundaries.
Relations in the second changeset are anyway deleted by its editor, Aleksandar. Later he has merged those two relations into one relation by osm.org/changeset/118774915. Again, no state of UAE is touched with this changeset.

About my changeset here, what I changed actually is discussed on before at osm.org/changeset/123563171, where you said:

> I guess it’s fine now to change the boundaries from administrative to disputed and remove them from the relation of the UAE so it won't overlap between 2 countries

What I did is the thing you agreed on before. I removed _claimed_ border lines from _real_ and _current_ boundary of UAE states.

Hope it helps to know what I did.

Hello,
Thank you for following up on this issue. I have 2 points on the current situation:

1- "Claimed borders" are still part of "real borders" of some sub-divisions of UAE:
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1kir
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1kit

2- Currently we have 3 set of relations for claimed borders:
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1kiv
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1kix
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1kiz

‎:D

@LockOnGuy
Yes, removing dispute from the wiki was wrong and I thanked Tigerfell publicly by pressing thank button when I noticed about revert of my edit on wiki and time of pressing button should be available.

For now I would wait if others have comments.

Thanks

To all:
Please let me know your opinions, specially about my last comment to LockOnGuy

Thanks

@LockOnGuy,
OSM is a map of things that are both real and current. If you think borders are wrong, follow the issue on the ground so it become real and then tell me. I'm here to edit it as reality. Like the issue of "طابو زراعي" that you pointed before.

Representation of a dispute on OSM, should not reflect anything more than the dispute itself.
Also you should note that borders in real world are controlled by governments and Iran has full control over 3 islands.
So you can conclude that the dispute here has had no effect on real boundaries.

About the comment of your recent changeset I should say that I'm not speaking about the degree of my nationalism and I'm interested in edits that interest me.

@Aleksandar Matejevic
OK, you want to map a dispute. I agree with mapping such a thing but it shouldn't use same tags the real boundaries use. For example way 1054903303 that was going through Iran should not have admin_leve=2. It could be disputed:admin_level=2. because in real it is a line passing territory of Iran which itself tagged with admin_level=2 and this is a conflict between those two types of admin_level=*. All tags specific to the dispute should have such a tag (as an example with dispute prefix). So renderers handle them completely separate.

Also, those disputed areas are part of Iran territory on the ground and it is verifiable on the ground, so those disputed areas should only be added to the relation of Iran, if adding to country relations is needed.

@Nawfal85, the main issue there, is insulting.
Exsistence of a building is not that important.
However, you are right, sorry I had a wrong assumption and went off-topic.
My answer to your comment is the same as my response to others above.

Dear @Nawfal85,
I guess someone provoked you to comment here. However I may be wrong and of course, there is nothing wrong with commenting. But please ask lockdownguy (if you know him) why he changed the name of the Holy Imam Javad (peace be upon him) to "گواد"
(أعوذ بالله)

History of node:
osm.org/node/4236952889/history
More detailed:
https://osmcha.org/changesets/92006823/

Note that recently after someone changed the name to "جامع الزهراء" a user deleted it completely.
And yet another user added same place at same location again.
There are a lot of vandalism on Iraq from lockdownguy that I'm going to report to DWG.

* woodpeck

@Aleksandar Matejevic

Hi Aleksandar, the relation you added is not needed. There are two islands that both have Wikidata. That's enough. I don't map claims specially ones that are not verifiable on the ground.

@Abdullah Abdulrhman, @woopeck

Hi, I know we map verifiable things on OSM and those claims are not verifiable on the ground. Those claims always rejected by Iranian officials.

Regards

@LockOnGuy
I fixed the incorrect changes by changeset 123506738. Please don't repeat it.
Thanks

NP, I will revert your changes when I have time.