In my last edit I just added wikidata and name:en and your earlier edit still shows name:高庄乡 - even http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/tjbz/tjyqhdmhcxhfdm/2018/41/07/410782.html still shows it as 高庄乡 so what can I do ;)

Now I see what you meant ;) - fixed.

Where did you find a duplicate shape? I had a quick check but didn't find anything... Do you have an id of duplicate ways or relations?

You're right! ;) The Chinese administrative system is really strange and additionally seems to change too often: counties are becoming cities and later districts; townships becoming towns and later subdistricts the more urbanization increases. Chinese community is still in development I guess... ZhWiki is way behind compared with http://www.stats.gov.cn data - at least in urban areas in Henan (example 涧西区). Me not capable to speak or write Chinese is moving pages in zhwiki and fixing wikidata... ;) https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:用户贡献/Katpatuka and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Katpatuka )

ok :) I use pin1yin1.com to convert, seldom purpleculture.net/chinese-pinyin-converter or leo.org

Thanks mayi007, you're right, I've re-tagged those roads as unclassified and added some more roads which are all sort of dead-end roads leading through farmland or forest without any bigger villages around - see changeset/73738730 .

I see that you've created two new 魏庄街道 nodes, the second one tagged with place=suburb - is the latter intended as label for a relation?

Don't know how the Chinese osm community prefers to tag all 街道 - up to now I've been using place=town - would you say place=suburb is more appropriate?

Thanks - didn't know about the 2018 link. From time to time I had cross-checked names at the old 2013 link at http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/tjbz/tjyqhdmhcxhfdm/2013/ ...

Since I cannot read, write or speak Chinese my only reference is wikidata and zhwiki - the latter sometimes seemingly not being up-to-date...

Thanks for notification ;)

Those values weren't intended to be added because I do not know the date of the population values anyway...

Sure, if they are leading to an airport I'd also tag them as service... if you're busy there around feel free to change what you think is more appropriate. It's a long time ago that I had been editing in Malaysia and there was no digitalglobe imagery available then (my CS comment says bing; mapbox; landsat). Additionally I didn't create those ways... ;)

no idea where the z= came from ;)

I don't have better sources than you had anyway...

I've now changed man_made=ground_text -> geoglyph with text:translation:en in China

The geoglyph is on a dam and shows the name of the reservoir. Since there is apparently still no agreement on key combinations describing the details of a geoglyph (see man_made=geoglyph) I usually use text=* and text:meaning=

inscription sounds a bit strange for huge characters on the ground... ;)

Occurances of text= key created in Turkey: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/JlD

You also still find an early key man_made=ground_text there...

o-oh... :) Well spotted! That was a copy/paste error - the Sumi Fortress is just nearby at way/688601382

I can only guess we both changed the China relation (splitting ways maybe) because I didn't touch relation/449220. I'm busy in Jilin - not at the coast of China ;)

Thank you! I thought I'd downloaded all referrers (parent relations) before splitting - may be I've split before downloading ;)

hm - CS closed over 9 years ago... ;)

The region probably has seen some development in the meantime but I'm not up-to-date nor have any reference maps at hand. But looking at the road condition I'd nowadays tag the unclassified part at least as tertiary or maybe secondary.

Ok ok, FreedSky told me already some weeks ago...

;)

Thanks for asking ;)

Well - it's a gps track from 2010 I found somewhere; I guess there wasn't any imagery available at that time to cross-check the type of track. Looking at it now I'd also say the western part of the road is residential while the eastern part more looks like a highway=track - feel free to change tagging around there.

Mich ärgern ja diese 1000-node zählenden 455 km langen überlandleitungen wie way/330401062#map=7/46.719/120.404 gewaltig! Wenn dafür schon relationen erstellt werden (warum eigentlch zwei? relation/8121497 und 3400068), dann kann man doch auch die 1000 nodes in wenigstens 10*100 aufsplitten, oder nicht ?!

Und dann gibt es noch way/560547244 und wahrscheinlich mehrere andere von user Meppen7, der sich mit way/330401062 überschneidet...

(seufz)