Hi, when editing in this changeset you've deleted a way that was a part of administrative boundary (relation/113179) and broke it. Could you please revert the change or fix East Oakdale boundary?

Thanks,
Tara

Hi, I've noticed you've been editing relation relation/6556221 but I've seen you've made so that ways (way/1175306831 and way/1175306830) are outer parts within residential polygon (way/251837046) that is marked as inner. Just wanted to ask whether these neighborhood ways were left as outer on purpose, so that they belong to the district, but the populated place as whole does not?
Thanks, Tara

Hi, I've noticed you've broken several administrative boundary relations (relation/5748011, relation/5748012 and relation/5748013 ). Can you tell me are you remapping admin_levels in this region and this is still a work in progress?
Thanks, Tara

Hi, I've noticed you've broken several administrative boundary relations (relation/6408624 , relation/5595089 and relation/5595088). Can you tell me are you remapping admin_levels in this region and this is still a work in progress?
Thanks, Tara

Hi, I've noticed you've broken several administrative boundary relations (relation/5574252 and relation/5574254) and that in a changeset a month ago, you've also removed their names. Can you tell me are you remapping admin_levels in this region and this is still a work in progress?
Thanks, Tara

The issue was that way (way/396950676) was excluded from relation so relation was incomplete. I've fixed it now.
Thanks, Tara

Hi, I've noticed there is an issue with relation (relation/10493722). It is broken in the same way as it was in your previous changeset (138647730). I've fixed it in changeset (138651516) but I see it is now broken again, in similar way as previously. Is there any special reason for this administrative boundary to have broken relation and such geometry? Are you still working on it or is this accidental error?
Thanks, Tara

Hi, in this changeset you've broken administrative boundary relations of China (relation/270056) and Nepal (relation/184633). I've fixed these (in changesets 138709869 and 138709424). For future editing, please make sure to check and not break any administrative boundary relations, especially not the ones related to countries.
Thanks, Tara

Hi, in this changeset you've broken a relation (relation/15700189). I've fixed it, but please take care in the future not to leave administrative boundary relations broken.
Thanks,
Tara

Hi, I've noticed you are creating new administrative boundaries in this region. Some of these (relation/16101594, relation/16101597 and relation/16101596) are not closed. Are you still working on these?
Thanks, Tara

Hi, I've seen you've been editing several administrative boundaries. In this changeset some of them (relation/15567676, relation/6432042 and relation/6432278) had missing roles in relations. I've fixed these, but for future reference please make sure that when you split or add any new member to relation it has appropriate relation role (outer, inner, subarea, label etc.). If role is missing, relation is broken and non-functional. Thanks, Tara

Hi, I've noticed that in a couple of changesets you've changed administrative boundaries. In case of relation (relation/16036532) in changeset/138568034 you've changed it from boundary concerning Licab to one referring to Zaragoza. After this changeset this relation is now broken and has somewhat of difunctional boundary. I've also noticed that in changeset/138569876 you've created relation for administrative boundary of level 6 with single, non-closed way (relation/16096625). Are you still working on these administrative boundaries or was this an accidental error?
Thanks, Tara

Hi, I've noticed that you added new road geometry, which I can only assume is newly constructed or in construction still (e.g. way/1189827142). You've referred to Bing aerial imagery as source, but I cannot confirm this geometry on Bing. Also, when editing these you've broken one administrative boundary (relation/11009338). Can you please take a look once more and give more information on the source of these changes?
Thanks,
Tara

Hi, this changeset broke a lot of administrative boundary relations. I've fixed them now and removed some duplicated waterways. Just wanted to let you know to be more careful around boundaries in the future. If you need any help related to it, please let me know.
Thanks, Tara

Hi Salim,
I had to revert these boundary ways and relations that were deleted/broken (see changeset/138229275). Now all the boundaries are restored. I've checked and some of your changes are still there, but just in case, you should verify it yourself. For future use I would recommend editing boundaries in JOSM rather then ID editor. Also, try to avoid editing boundaries if these are not in the scope of what you initially intended to map. If I can help in any way, let me know. Happy mapping!

Hi, I've noticed you've been adding several boundary relations, but most of them seem unfinished (relation/16059007 and relation/16059011). I was wandering are you still working on these?

Thanks,
Tara

Hi, I've noticed you've been making new boundaries. Some of them (relation/16056722 , relation/16056723 and relation/16056721) look unfinished. I was wandering are you still working on these?

Thanks,
Tara

Hi, can you please check and fix multiple administrative boundary relations that have been broken by this changeset (for example relation/10124510 , relation/10124511 and others)?
Thanks,
Tara

Hi Tyeniz001, you've broken relation relation/8401084 . Can you please fix this?
Thanks,
Tara

I agree. That's why I placed intermittent=yes tag on all of the features I added, based on Esri World Imagery and Bing. If you have more information on the seasonality or specifics of these waterbodies, please feel free to add them or change mine.
Thanks!