我还买过你信不😅

https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1sk4y1i7Y9/

对了下视频是这里

The changeset has been reverted for political vandalism. Please follow de-facto when mapping. Happy mapping~

Hi, it's struggle to apply highway=trunk for all these road. Could you explain why you tagging it?

Please explain what is the confusion and why you do this changeset, making several relations broken and making the bounder against the actual situation?

I have mentioned that OSM follows the de-facto policy, so labels for China controlled area should be labeled in Chinses, same as Vietnam controlled area labeled in Vietnamese.

"OpenStreetMap maps world as it exists, and includes mapping borders and countries according to actual current situation and not a preferred or ideal situation." (osm.wiki/Disputed_territories)

OSM follows the de-facto policy which is equal to every country. China also has many historical material to support its claim from of old until in now, like 诸蕃志 said China has administrated this area since A.D.789 (under 振州's administration), 四海测验 (1279), 琼台外记 (Ming), 琼州府志 (1841), etc. If every country maps as its claim, the map would be in a mess. So, OSM follows the de-facto to map the real world rather than somebody's imagination world.

Hello @cngvng,
This area (including the Paracel Islands and Spratly Islands) is a disputed territory, which should be tagged in the language of the country that actually controls the territory; information about territorial disputes is typically noted in administrative relations and tags. Simply renaming elements to quotes like "quần đảo Hoàng Sa" is a destructive behavior, and does not help on labeling features on disputed territories. Therefore, I have restored some of the damaged data because OSM follows the "de facto" principle. If you still have questions, feel free to communicate.

Why do this?

你好，结合您先前做出的编辑，你似乎正在再一次删除实际存在的名称，但没有给出合理的理由。请你查看先前编辑集讨论中提及的关于争议地区的名称表示方法。

该变更集已在 changeset/153323493 中回退。

你好，结合您先前做出的编辑，你似乎正在再一次删除实际存在的名称，但没有给出合理的理由。请你查看先前编辑集讨论中提及的关于争议地区的名称表示方法。

该变更集已在 changeset/153323493 中回退。

在数年前我曾提醒过加英语的那个人，但是貌似没有用；如果您感兴趣，还可以看看中不边界附近

您好，注意到您在上次回复后似乎没有做出行动，请对此做出解释。

Thank you

Oh, yep, if you find any info in Vietnamese is wrong or inaccurate, please help correct it. I am not familiar with Vietnamese.

Discussed in changeset 148,136,531.

这下148136531讨论过了哈，再方块就不对了哈。

See changeset/148219213

OK, I see.

I also agree with your opinion, so I will do option 1 later, which is just a little different from the data now.

For these southeast islands/reefs, it's true that there isn't a line on "claim", but I also have almost not found any material in other languages about Vietnam's claims to individual islands near Malaysia separately (including no mention of Vietnam's claims in Wikipedia in other languages). Of course if you are quite sure, then just keep it.

There is a short version for 3 solutions, but I can't guarantee the quality of the translation, so I put the original text here:

一个就是把每对儿国家之间所有有争议的放一个dispute里面，一对儿国家一个relation（可以有子分区）；

一个是把一个国家声索但是没实控的给每个国家放单独的dispute，一个国家一个relation；

一个是难得弄，就不弄。