Now there are two relations that refer to the same Wikidata item, relation/1216719 and relation/2867318, first for the admin entity and latter for the island. The two are distinct entities, no matter if Wikipedia in any language consider it worthwhile to create separate articles about the two.

Currently geometry for neither the admin entity nor the island can be pulled properly based on Wikidata ID.

I assume the validation error was for non-matching wikipedia link. You could have just removed that link instead.

It appears island parts that are not part of the national park were added here. These parts though shouldn't be mapped as separate islands that lie next to one another. Either separate way should be created for the whole island, in addition to slightly different way representing the national park boundary, or a relation should be created for the island as well, so that it and the national park can share the outer ways. I'll try to fix the situation in the latter manner.

Sõnavaht jah. Lisan nii palju, et ma ei ole ainus, kes asjast sinust teistmoodi aru saab. Alul viidatud vanemas arutelus on minuga sama meelt teinegi kasutaja. Kui sul on laiemale ringile mingi teistsugune ettepanek seoses sellega, kuidas ADS ja teeregistri andmetega ümber käia, siis saad küsimuse jutuks võtta siin: https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/ee/79

Vabandust, aga see "lõpliku tõe" jutt on sul laest võetud. Palun loe juhendmaterjali, millel viitasin. Sealt saad teada, mis vahe on teeregistri ja ADS-i andmetel ja millised andmed on milliste andmete suhtes primaarsed.

Ma ei tea, võib-olla ADS-is on mingid probleemid, aga jääb praegu arusaamatuks, mis probleemid need tegelikult on ja kuidas see siinsesse küsimusse puutub.

See ei ole õige. ADS ei vahenda teeregistri andmeid, vaid see on teistsugune andmebaas teistsuguse suunitlusga ja seal on sihilikult teistsugused andmed. Sealt puuduvad aadressiobjektina (liikluspinnana) need teed ja teekujud, mida ei ole aadressides vaja kasutada või ilma milleta on adresseerimine selgem.

Juhendmaterjal, mida eespool mainisin ja kus on täpsemalt juttu teeregistri teenimedest ja aadressiobjektide nimedest, on siin: https://maaruum.ee/kaardid-geoandmed-ja-aadressid/aadressid-ja-kohanimed/aadressiandmete-ja-kohanimede-kasiraamat/1313-tee-nimi-ja-liikluspinna-nimi

Teeregistris võib teel olla teine nimi, näiteks kui tänav (aadressiobjekt) kattub pikema riigiteega, või siis seal vastupidi peaks olema nimega kohalik tee sama ulatusega nagu aadressiobjekt ADS-is.

Soovida jätab see, et toome sildiga "name" ära läbisegi eri andmestikest pärit andmed. Teeregistris on sellel teel nimi, ADS-i järgi on see ilma nimeta. Eelmises arutelus ma tõin näiteks teeregistrist pärit nime "Pae - Tee 27". See on selline just seetõttu, et tee ei kuulu Pae tänava koosseisu. Eks ole, sellise tänavanimesid pole me siia lisanud, kuna need oleks ekistavad. Miks siin siiski on lisatud teeregistrist pärit nimi sildiga "name"? Nähtavasti lihtsalt sellepärast, et see parasjagu meenutab tänavanime.

Asi ei ole selles, et AKS (ADS) on puudulik, vaid teeregistris vastupidi on teele pandud eksitav nimi (vt viidet eelmises arutelus).

Vt https://aks.geoportaal.ee/aks/address/detail/LP00018336

Tänav ise ning teise nimega teemaa katastriüksus ja tänava äärde jäävad asjad on ikkagi eri asjad.

Minu kommentaar käis näiteks way/213116024 kohta – aadressiandmete järgi ei kuulu see Anna Haava tänava koosseisu ning seetõttu võiks kaaluda nime lisamist sildiga teeregister:name

Border segments actually can be either orographic or cartographic, i.e. defined by either natural features like rivers or by coordinates. Also the definition of country borders normally is superior to any cadastral mapping. This particular border segment is defined as orographic, see https://www.riigiteataja.ee/et/akt/113012015015#para3lg2p15 – so I see no reason to think that you made border data or river data more accurate here.

Names of the two neighbours as ref? I haven't encountered such habit so far, and it still makes little sense to me. Is it documented somewhere? There have been complaints about using "name" key for such pseudo-names in the past, and in at least one occasion DWG has simply removed these.

Teeregistri ja tänavanimede kohta: changeset/141442421

way/484500467 – this way is only to make the water network complete, it isn't part of a named river. So it don't think it should have been made part of the river (relation/3832837) here. Neither is the source lake (relation/3832833) part of the river really.

way/45486073 – why it was needed to make the river centreline and country border apart from one another here?

I agree that border segments like way/45486074 should not carry name "Eesti - Россия", as this isn't a name really. But why this "name" was moved to "ref" key? I don't think it is a reference number or code of any kind either.

Please note that place name Vana-Antsla stands for the entire settlement (relation/352485), not only the more compact centre mapped as residential area that misleadingly got this name here.

There actually already were two objects with village name, the other one being node/1973428366 at the village centre. This can be searched for, too.

Landuse carrying this name on the other hand is misleading, as this is simply the wrong area.

Note that we use "administrative" tag in lack of better alternatives though the settlements in Estonia actually aren't administrative entities. This "administrative" area is the only definite/verifiable way how this village is actually delimited.

Do you know of sources where name of this particular suburb is actually translated in all these languages? Usually names of smaller places like this are not translated.

relation/3157885 – this object is for landuse, it has no name. Name "Lüübnitsa" that you added stands for the whole village/hamlet (relation/354675), including the dispersed settlement around, not only this more compact residential area.

way/45455545 – this object is for landuse, it has no name, name that you added stands for the whole village including the dispersed settlement around this more compact residential landuse. It is also unclear why enlarged residential landuse the way you did as it now includes quite large chunks for fields/meadows.

Name for node/1973428707 probably should not have been changed to include generic term 'küla'. Other village labels exclude it as this is how village names normally appear on maps. Also, previously labels nodes for this type of settlement have been harmonized to to use place=hamlet not place=village. The latter is used for larger settlements of type alev and alevik instead.

Polish name is another matter. KSNG does list exonym Tylża but main name variant in their list is still endonym Sowieck. I suppose based that alt_name:pl instead of old_name:pl can be considered for Tylża.

Sorry, I don't know what "my" logic you refer to, nor how is this relevant to name:de.

An endonym being used is just the default situtation, solid reason is needed to use an exonym instead of an endonym, not the other way around. As already quoted to you in previous discussion, from KSNG guidelines: "consistent within UN recommendations /.../ original names [endonyms] should be used in all doubtful cases".

What evidence do you have to back this claim? Folks on German Wikipedia in any case haven't drawn such conclusion, and prefer Sowetsk in their article title.

Please don't restart discussion on exactly the same matter that was already discussed under changeset/179825956 (as well as in Discourse discussion referred over there). This is disrespectful to other users. Your question was already answered.