And when is the date of that Decree 1555/QĐ-TTg? It's 28/6/2016, which is before the date of the Decree 4155/QĐ-BGTVT (26/12/2016). Also, these maps are from the Ministry of Construction (Bộ Xây dựng).

Very simple rule:
If a road is part of a National Route system (quốc lộ), then the Ministry of Transportation (Bộ Giao thông vận tải) is responsible for managing it, so any road upgrade will be done by the ministry. If it is a local road then either the People Committee (Ủy ban nhân dân) or Department of Transportation (Sở GTVT tỉnh) is responsible for its update.

In 2011-2015, the Ministry has upgraded the whole route of Dầu Giây to Dalat (including the Prenn Pass), but the recent upgrade in 2023 was done by the government of Lâm Đồng province. Isn't that clear?

No one is guessing here. Just take a look at this link: https://quochoi.vn/bandannguyen/cutriQH14/Pages/Home.aspx?ItemID=33149

The Vietnam Ministry of Transport has decided to reroute QL.20 to Mimosa Pass in 2016. If it was still part of the National Route, the Ministry would be responsible for its recent upgrade, not the government of Lam Dong Province.

Then simply mapping those “public work” objects and name them is perfectly enough. Drawing them as place nodes is wrong because they no longer exist administratively as place names. Adding those place names as labels of several wards creates a worse mess.

Please stop adding place names that no longer exist. You are creating a very huge mess.

PeakAdvisor grab data from many sources, one of which is OSM. If you look at the peak next to “Anh Na”, it’s named “Pol Li”. Both of these are the results of vandalism by the same one user 4 years ago (and I’m currently suspecting that you are that person too), but no one recognized. PeakAdvisor grabbed that erroneous version.

Can you provide a source that indicate that "Anh Na" is this mountain's name? Otherwise this is very apparent that this is vandalism.

Well! So I don't even have the right to watch out and see if my previous edits have been vandalized. I was drawing it according to the sources by the government, which took me 5 days, while you are applying your "local knowledge". And yes, this will be my LAST WARNING. Either you revert it yourself or I will report this to the admins.

So now you are apply your "personal knowledge"? What do you know about the "de facto control"? I mapped it according to sources by the governments? And now you are completely messing it up.

Wow! It seems like you still haven’t looked up the definition of the word “relative”. Those islets were mapped years ago. And do keep in mind that since this is a reservoir, water level doesn’t stay still, so are other rivers and lakes.

Borders of forests also don’t stay still. More areas might be reforested, or even deforested by “lâm tặc”. The current forest border you are drawing, might have been incorrect as of now (March 2024). So in short, almost everything in this OSM is relative. Cho nên là: “Ừ, tôi vẫn dám khẳng định rằng đó là A- work đấy.”

“Xóa mấy cái rừng có chết ai đâu, chẳng qua cũng được autofill từ ranh VQG”. Cũng lại cái văn mẫu “có chết ai đâu” nữa à bác. Văn mẫu kiểu này thường là dùng để nguỵ biện đấy bác ạ.

Và quan trọng nhất là đây: Đống rừng autofill đó ít ra vẫn tô xanh bản đồ, nhìn vẫn đẹp mắt hơn nhiều cái version mà bác tẩy hết nó đi sau đó mà chưa thèm vẽ lại. Một mặt bác tỏ ra khá cầu toàn về cái ranh rừng (thứ mà vẽ lên bản đồ chỉ có tương đối chứ không bao giờ tuyệt đối được), một mặt lại khá cẩu thả xóa mà không thèm vẽ lại (ở Mũi Cà Mau). Sao lại mâu thuẫn thế nhỉ? Tôi không “xồn xồn”, khả năng vài tháng tới hay thậm chí năm sau nhiều chỗ rừng bác xóa trắng cũng sẽ trống hươ trống hoác đấy chứ.

Đây là cộng đồng có nhiều người, cho nên bác học cách tôn trọng những đóng góp của người khác chút đi.

“The forests do not occupy 100% of the islets.” Agree BUT you are aware that in the dictionary there is a word called “relative”, or “tương đối” in Vietnamese right? It does not occupy 100% of the islet, but somewhere around > 90%. So drawing 100% of the islet wood can be considered an A- work. That being said, it is not a D or F work (aka not erroneous) so as the code of conduct goes, deleting such a work should mean that it will be replaced with a >= quality work ASAP.

Why removing the woods on the islands? What's the matter with those?
1. From the satellite images, it's completely clear that the islands are covered with wood.
2. Those islands themselves are also ecosystems with birds living there and are also managed by the national park.
Please, please... really do (a lot of) research when you map, rather than doing things subjectively.

As said in the changeset summary, this is just temporary. These multiline strings won't even appear in the map when people browse it.

If your newly drawn forests are better, then these will be eventually deleted after you finish drawing the forests by next week. But if the new forests you create is somehow worse, then I will use these multiline strings to recover the old versions of the forests.

Also, three things to consider before you even shout out the arguments "deleting because not everything in the national parks are forests" to justify yourself next time:
1. Really take a look at that example of Clarence Fahnestock Memorial State Park that I pointed out. None of those forests are erroneous. The issue that you pointed out (not everything in NPs are forests) indicates that those forests are not 100% accurate. Not 100% accurate doesn't mean erroneous. Many sea/ocean relations are not 100% accurate because there are some islands missing (which people haven't drawn), why not delete all of those oceans? You have made me repeat this statement for the 3rd time already, and I don't really want to do it the 4th time.
2. Were the members of every deleted forests and national park relations exactly the same? In the case of Nam Cat Tien area, that forest you deleted clearly included some natural lakes as it inner, while the national park boundary does not.
3. You deleted even a massive piece of forest along Dong Nai River (from Lam Dong's Cat Tien District all the way to Di Linh District), despite only a small section of it has Cat Tien NP boundaries.

Okay! We will see about it then. If by next week, any of those deleted forest is not replaced by an independent version, not only that I will revert everything, but I will also report this to the admins. Deal?

So now you are justifying yourself by judging other people's edits as not being "high-effort"? Don't forget that this is a voluntary, so every edits that are not vandalism count as effort.

On the other hand, deleting objects that are not erroneous, without a proper replacement, is more of a vandalism. And again, using a nature reserve boundary as a forest outer is NOT erroneous, because it is also done in other countries including US (like the example I showed).

Also, in this changeset (relation/16894115) you also deleted a huge amount of forest outers that are NOT nature reserve boundaries. That makes it a lot more like a vandalism.

Anyway, to sum up:
1. The next time you delete a forest for the redrawing of its independent version, you are expected to have the redrawing done soon. And by soon, I will make that at most in one week. Therefore, make that clear by giving a deadline in the changeset comment.
2. If you you think you can't redraw the "independent" version of those forests, COMPLETELY, within one week, then leave the forest as it is.

I think you didn't get what I meant. There's no "few weeks" here. As soon as you delete a "glued" forest, that deleted forest should be replaced by an independent forest area (or whatever you call it) IMMEDIATELY.

Other mappers took a lot of time and effort to map those enormous forest areas, and you just delete them because it doesn't look right to you. Unless those forests are erroneous (which are apparently not), deleting without a proper replacement is not okay at all.

In case you find the example above not convincing enough, then you can also take a look at this way/799458336.

Please note that none of the forests that you deleted is "one big multipolygon with the boundaries as children". They only used some ways that are boundaries as their outers, and that's when its outer is also the boundary. I'm not the only one who map this way. Mappers in other countries also do the same thing, like this one way/922405753#map=13/4.9162/102.5063.

If you want to map the forest independently, that's totally fine and I'm not gonna stop you... BUT... I would suggest that you do it the moment you deleted the "glued" forest. Otherwise I'm going to revert that deletion. Last time you deleted all of the mangrove forest areas of Mui Ca Mau but only remapped a few of them and then leave it as it was for months. That's the most terrible thing to do.

Not convincing. If the "outer" of the forest is also the boundary of the nature reserve, then I don't see the reason why we should not used that as a "shared" border.

Also, I'm not sure what you meant by "very big multipolygon mess". Several multipolygons have hundreds, if not thousands of children. For example, this one relation/9443832, and it was totally fine.

Can you point out which user manual/instruction tells us not to "use nature reserves as the outer area"? Otherwise, I find this edit to be unconstructive.