@Taya_S
I saw some relations do it for the whole country, e.g. relation/13834513. So, I did the same for Syria as well. I’m not familiar with OSM’s preferred approach regarding such topics. If an approach such in relation/12931502 is a preferred one, then one can do the same for Syria.

The relation was concerning the territories claimed by Syria. Whether it’s possible to retake these territories is completely irrelevant to the relation. Your political views on the matter are irrelevant as well. These articles (and this one as well https://english.enabbaladi.net/archives/2025/10/al-sharaa-the-golan-is-syrian-territory-and-we-are-trying-to-regain-it-through-negotiations/) clearly show that the Syrian claim is still official policy, even if you see it as promoted by a third part. Bottom line, and as said earlier, the relation is still relevant.

A quick Google search gave me these two very clear and recent cases of Syria’s remaining claim over the Golan Heights (https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/syria-welcomes-123-nation-vote-demanding-israeli-withdrawal-from-occupied-golan-heights/3760827# and https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/10/26/syria-demands-return-of-the-golan-heights-amid-arab-pressure/). A map, and one of such secondary importance in its respective post, is barely an adequate evidence to support your claim.

Despite the regime change, the policy regarding the question of sovereignty over the Golan Heights has NOT changed. The new Syrian Government, along with the UN and pretty much every other country, still claims the Golan Heights as Syrian territory. Therfore, this relation is as relevant as it have always been.

Hi,
As this relation didn’t have a name, I tried to find a suitable name for it. This relation is meant to show the borders of the West Bank when it was annexed by Jordan, and not the West Bank in general or today. Thus, I decided to call it «Jordanian West Bank» just to distinguish the two. There are probably better names though.
Regrds,

I do agree that the population seems low, especially when compared to estimates of current population. But that's the number provided in the 2004 census, the most recent census conducted in Syria I believe. Either the authorities used a more conservative definition of the city's borders giving lower number, or the city grew at a rapid pace in the last 20 years. Whatever it is, I have no more detailed and confirmed number other than the one I used. Others, while they might reflect the current reality better, are just estimates. If you, or others, disagree with me and prefer to use a more recent estimate, I won't stop them. I just used what I thought was the most recent good data we have.

As a Syrian, I agree 5000%, but I believe the borders in OSM reflect the de facto borders and not the de jure. That’s why I made a relation with the legal borders of Syria.

Hi,
I'll try to be more detailed from now on. The changes I made were matching the border to the border wall between the two countriea, and I just used the aerial map. It's a minor change but makes the border slightly more accurate.
If you are suspecting that my edit has something to do with the mess in the East Mediterranean coasts, then no, it wasn't my doing.