Hi, in this changeset you've broken administrative boundary relations of China (relation/270056) and Nepal (relation/184633). I've fixed these (in changesets 138709869 and 138709424). For future editing, please make sure to check and not break any administrative boundary relations, especially not the ones related to countries.
Thanks, Tara

Hi, in this changeset you've broken a relation (relation/15700189). I've fixed it, but please take care in the future not to leave administrative boundary relations broken.
Thanks,
Tara

Hi, I've noticed you are creating new administrative boundaries in this region. Some of these (relation/16101594, relation/16101597 and relation/16101596) are not closed. Are you still working on these?
Thanks, Tara

Hi, I've seen you've been editing several administrative boundaries. In this changeset some of them (relation/15567676, relation/6432042 and relation/6432278) had missing roles in relations. I've fixed these, but for future reference please make sure that when you split or add any new member to relation it has appropriate relation role (outer, inner, subarea, label etc.). If role is missing, relation is broken and non-functional. Thanks, Tara

Hi, I've noticed that in a couple of changesets you've changed administrative boundaries. In case of relation (relation/16036532) in changeset/138568034 you've changed it from boundary concerning Licab to one referring to Zaragoza. After this changeset this relation is now broken and has somewhat of difunctional boundary. I've also noticed that in changeset/138569876 you've created relation for administrative boundary of level 6 with single, non-closed way (relation/16096625). Are you still working on these administrative boundaries or was this an accidental error?
Thanks, Tara

Hi, I've noticed that you added new road geometry, which I can only assume is newly constructed or in construction still (e.g. way/1189827142). You've referred to Bing aerial imagery as source, but I cannot confirm this geometry on Bing. Also, when editing these you've broken one administrative boundary (relation/11009338). Can you please take a look once more and give more information on the source of these changes?
Thanks,
Tara

Hi, this changeset broke a lot of administrative boundary relations. I've fixed them now and removed some duplicated waterways. Just wanted to let you know to be more careful around boundaries in the future. If you need any help related to it, please let me know.
Thanks, Tara

Hi Salim,
I had to revert these boundary ways and relations that were deleted/broken (see changeset/138229275). Now all the boundaries are restored. I've checked and some of your changes are still there, but just in case, you should verify it yourself. For future use I would recommend editing boundaries in JOSM rather then ID editor. Also, try to avoid editing boundaries if these are not in the scope of what you initially intended to map. If I can help in any way, let me know. Happy mapping!

Hi, I've noticed you've been adding several boundary relations, but most of them seem unfinished (relation/16059007 and relation/16059011). I was wandering are you still working on these?

Thanks,
Tara

Hi, I've noticed you've been making new boundaries. Some of them (relation/16056722 , relation/16056723 and relation/16056721) look unfinished. I was wandering are you still working on these?

Thanks,
Tara

Hi, can you please check and fix multiple administrative boundary relations that have been broken by this changeset (for example relation/10124510 , relation/10124511 and others)?
Thanks,
Tara

Hi Tyeniz001, you've broken relation relation/8401084 . Can you please fix this?
Thanks,
Tara

I agree. That's why I placed intermittent=yes tag on all of the features I added, based on Esri World Imagery and Bing. If you have more information on the seasonality or specifics of these waterbodies, please feel free to add them or change mine.
Thanks!

Correction: Bing aerial imagery was used

This does not seem like a motorway junction. They can be used on roads that are not motorways, but these are usually clearly marked as exits on signs and can have exit numbers that should be added as ref tags(highway=motorway_junction). If you want to add a signpost referring to where the road leads you can add it as a destination on way (destination=*) or a destination in a relation (osm.wiki/Relation:destination_sign). Please review this.

Hi,
Per Wiki guidelines for Australia alt A2 should be tagged as network=alt and ref=A2 ( osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Route_Numbers). If you need additional resources on tagging or clarification, feel free to reach out.

Hi!
Barriers are visible on Esri and Bing, and also there is an image, https://openstreetcam.org/details/1388066/68/track-info that has a larger gate for regular vehicles, but also a smaller white barrier, a little more to the left, with two blue signs. Based on this (http://www.trailadventures.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/9-Lake-Tekapo-to-Twizel.pdf) and that OSC imagery it seems that bicycles and pedestrians can access it. Hope this helps.
Thanks!

Wrong upload comment was submitted. Fixing roof_level of several buildings in Pariske komune, Belgrade, Serbia.

Thanks for letting me know.
I think this can happen due to value or keys of tags being automatically memorized and suggested in JOSM so once you make one typo it is easy to make more of them. I will be more careful in the future.

Thanks,
Tara

No problem, I assumed so. If you have any questions concerning destination sign relation or anything else feel free to contact me. I'll be happy to help.
Best,
Tara