Additionally, this page (osm.wiki/Disputed_territories) talks about tagging such boundaries with ) boundary=disputed + disputed=yes

tagging these with boundary = administrative & adminlevel=2 is causing them be interpreted by most software to be authentic and accepted.

Hi Jeff!

I see that you have added dispute=yes here.

Is there any specific reason why you preferred that disputed=yes?

Hi! Thanks for editing on OSM! I would suggest that you make smaller changsets, so that it is eaiser to view and review them.

Can you help explain what is the source for this way: way/1119515566

Additionally, in this large changeset, there are many ways which cross buildings, or cross other roads. Please avoid such errors.

@Saikat, yes you are correct. I have reversed the incorrect tunnel: changeset/130430861

hi! What exactly have you changed in this changeset? why are such disjoint changes being saved in one changeset that too with such a non-descriptive commit message

Please enter a Descriptive commit message for your changeset.

It is not clear why you have one changeset over such a large area

Why have you marked the Departments as places of Worship?

ok.. got it.
Thanks for the prompt respone.

Hi Olyon,
I see that you have tagged these wards with admin_level="16.3"
Can you help me understand what this means, since it is not documented, and does not follow the tagging scheme given here: osm.wiki/India/Local_Government_Boundaries

HI Heinz, Did you want to tag this way with level 8 or 9 ? relation/10997987

Hi Chetan, What does the admin_level=01 represent on this Way: way/1038946921#map=14/18.2198/76.6110 ?

Please tag the admin levels according to this page: osm.wiki/India/Administrative_Boundaries

Madhumita, I'v removed the incorrect road for now, but let's review all the roads you have added so far, and lets make sure that we follow all the guidelines.