Ok, thanks for the info. The road's history lists the creation with this changeset, and not subsequent versions, so if you're not sure about the name tag, I'll remove it.

What's with the `highway=unclassified` with the `name=s` tag that was added with this changeset, just north of Hikkim? This is a very unusual name. It seems like it could easily be a typo. The changeset also lacks a source tag, so we can't tell what the name would be based on.

FYI, this edit added many power=tower nodes with identical locations, pairs with one connected to the powerline, and one not. I've fixed it with this edit: changeset/50956271

Thanks for fixing this Checkpoint, I've added a note (note/1094106) questioning if there is really a checkpoint here, and was wondering if you knew one way or the other. The reason for my doubt, is that I was not stopped here while cycling past last summer, nor did I notice any chekpoint. And I was looking out for things that would be worth adding to the map.

Thanks for your contribution Ana! It's good to have someone in Ladakh adding details.

You have made an error that is common to new editors, of using the name tag as a way to provide general information. It should be used exclusively for names. Names like "Fresh Naan 7rs!!" should not be used, unless in the unlikely event that is the bakery's real name.

I have deleted some name tags that clearly contain descriptions.

There's also a few objects that include Gompa in the name. This is the Ladakhi and Tibetan name for monastery, but the context makes me think that you are referring to something else. Am I correct? What are you referring to?

I failed to update the source tag, yet again. This did use Bing, but also used Mapbox for sections.

I don't normally make major adjustments like this one based purely on imagery. In this case the discrepancy between the imagery and what we had mapped was huge. Slightly further south, in Udaipur, the imagery aligned perfectly with the public GPS track we had, and our mapped road was off. In this area we don't have GPS tracks at present, but I suspect that the imagery is pretty good.

Oops, this edit used Bing, not Mapbox, imagery.

The way representing the canal I extended is in the opposite direction of the one it meets. As an irrigation canal this would have a direction of flow, so it makes sense that the way should match it, but I don't know which is the correct direction.

The "residential areas" that are added with this edit contain a great deal of farmland and wooded areas. I can only view it as inaccurate enough that the traces should just be deleted. But perhaps I'm missing something?

Also I am confused by the "#Pakistan" in the edit summary, it seems to be a political statement, regarding the long controversial Indian administration of this area.

I'm adding a `religion=jewish` tag to this, as the Chabad institutions are Jewish. I do not know if this is a synagogue or not, but as some renderings may assume based on the current tags, but I will assume that the place_of_warship tag was accurate.

If the original uploaded could provide more info we might be able to tag it better.

I see that this edit also added a `maxspeed=30` tag to at least one alley. This surprises me, because the default maxspeed in BC for alleys is 20km/h. What is the source 30km/h speed?

I see that this edit also added a `maxspeed=30` tag to at least one alley. This surprises me, because the default maxspeed in BC for alleys is 20km/h. What is the source 30km/h speed?

I haven't contacted the editor, I should, only haven't out of laziness. Although I did leave many changeset summaries stating the issue.

I was confused about their name, "Stop edit", is that a result of being blocked?

Thanks for your answer katpatuka. And thanks for your contributions in this area, and in undermapped areas in general.

That said, I don't think it's a good idea to use Chinese data sources in this area. China has never administered this part of the world, but I think it has an interest in making sure it's map of the region is complete, if not accurate.

I've just spent a lot of time over the last few days fixing name tags in the state of Arunachal Pradesh because there were a lot of name tags containing Chinese language tags, mostly on inconspicuous things. Most of them added by an editor who goes by "Stop edit"(@Stop%20edit), but some by you. Many of the name tags contained a Chinese description of the object (eg name=lake, on a lake, but in Chinese) others followed a structure like name=streamY7. I've fixed it up the best I could, moving tags to name:zh for the most part.

oops...sorry to hit send there before I meant to. :-/

I see that you have added a bunch of name values with this changeset, with many of them being in the Chinese language. I'm wondering where this info has come from. I also noticed that you mistakenly put a "(CN)" in the changeset summary. This changeset is entirely within Indian administered areas, that are claimed by China, but never administered by China.

I'm wondering if you've got this data from a Chinese source.

Hi Katapatuka. I see that you have added a

This area is administered by India. Please use the `name:zh` tag for names in the Chinese language. Do not put Chinese names in the `name` tag.

I forgot to edit the chageset summery to say that this is adding the name:squ tag for Horseshoe bay. Not Vancouver.

Damn it. I forgot to edit the chageset summery to say that this is adding the name:squ tag for the Stawamus River. Not Vancouver.