Hi andershl, plase, proceed with the edits, if something is broken, I will jump in and fix it. Your edit was of a great value; it needed just a small adjustment so no need to stop editing because of this. Keep going and happy mapping !!!

I saw that you have created relation/18131866 but it can not be admin_level=7. Can you doublecheck this attribute?

Hi STRANNIK_MINSK,
In this changeset you have changed the geometry of relation/8144294 and relation/6722714

Both of these are now invalid boundaries. Can you fix this or should I revert them to the previous state?

Don't worry woodpecker, this was more for Elizabeth BS, disputes can be resolved with disputed_by and claimed_by tags, but not with wrong boundaries or corrections just in your opinion. My suggestion in all disputed regions is to create 2 relations, one de facto and one de jure, with claimed_by and disputed_by and everything is then mapped correctly, both variants are present. There are many disputed territories around the world with a larger area than this one river island and all local communities are having a chat and found solution that works for them all. Just by finding some map does not mean you should go over and apply it.

Hi, Elizabeth BS, stop making some changes that are not accurate even according to your source. I have georeferenced it and fixed everything, but you keep adding some boundaries which are not accurate. Then woodpeck_repair revert distroyed it also. I will fix this one again. Everybody in the world know about famous Tres Fronteras and how it looks.

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 relation/1504427

This does not seem like correct admin_level, since it is already under admin_level=4 relation 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 relation/12430378 and
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 boundary=administrative#11_admin_level_values_for_specific_countries