See comment on changeset/37716055 - the same applies here.

"There are a couple of reasons why we can't use wikipedia as a source. One is that wikipedia is cc-by-sa licensed, and that licence is incompatible with OSM.

The other is that what OSM calls a "city" is described on place=city . Wikipedia essentially just records what the city calls itself (or strictly speaking what someone has reported the city as calling itself).

place=city even says "Smaller charter cities should normally be tagged using place=town to avoid these places being promoted too highly in gazetteer search results. According to OSM the population here is 4167, which even for Alaska counts as "smaller".
It should also be noted that admin levels and "place" levels are something that should be discussed within an OSM community - having someone coming in from outside and applying what are essentially random values without discussion just makes OSM data harder to use and OSM harder to edit for the people who _are_ trying to work together."

Same applies here, right?

"What the place describes itself as is essentially irrelevant in OSM terms. If local OSM mappers think that it deserves to be a city, then it does. Previous to your edit, it's actually spent time in OSM as both town and city. It's original "city" status seems to have come directly from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cities_of_Australia , and there are a bunch of places on there that I've been to that I don't think should qualify as "cities" in OSM terms - Rockingham and Fremantle are obvious examples (both currently "towns" in OSM).
I'd suggest discussing it on the talk-au list."

Redland City's website (which I thought, at the time, was an allowed source, before I knew) says that it's a city, but now you've explained why we can't source from such places, as OSM has its own rule on what's a "city". I did not know that then. Sorry.

I was sourcing from Wikipedia, which I thought was allowed at the time. It says that Capalaba West's no more. Sorry.

So this is the second changeset on OSM. Interesting.

?

I know him already. I just wanted to notify him about this alarming changeset: changeset/38534150.

See? Wow, this is horrible! SADR needs to put back. Because of you, now someone has to go and fix it again.

SomeoneElse?

See here: relation/6120971/history.

See here: changeset/38519866.

See here: changeset/38427540.

SomeoneElse is against the idea of deleting the SADR, especially without discussion, and 4rch is against the idea as well:

"Hello technoprox, please note the OSMF guidelines on disputed boundaries: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf

Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic isn't under the control of Morocco. We map real boundaries, meaning physical control.

See also on the ground rule: osm.wiki/Disputes#On_the_Ground_Rule

Please respect also the boundaries of Spain around Melilla/Ceuta.

When you need a map which shows the boundaries according to the Moroccon viewpoint, there are a bunch of tools for OSM out there with whom you can produce your own map.

I've reverted your changesets which do not reflect the reality on the ground."

That was 4rch.

Obviously, you are for Morocco, because you're a Moroccan. However, that does not mean you can just delete the SADR and get away with it without discussing the matter first.

You deleted the SADR!

Please don't do such things!

"wod"?

You sure that's a highway?