Hello Sam888,
Can you explain what relation/14371920/history is supposed to be? It's clearly not well formed as a multipolygon, has relation/14371919 as an inner and the Gulf of Aqaba relation/12165391 (!) as an outer.
I've no idea what you're actually trying to do here, so I'd suggest that you ask about it on the help site https://help.osm.org or on https://community.openstreetmap.org/ .
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello Bruno,
Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here.
Just letting you know that we will need to redact this postcode data from OSM.
Best Regards,
Andy

OSM uses British English for tagging, so "official point of view of Orthodoxy" isn't especially relevant here.
Different churches will always have complicated lists of those others that they are "in communion" with.

> Besides the one you mentioned, I used BobKelly, RobertReynolds, Nia-gara and RickMaldonado

Whilst it's OK to use multiple accounts (I use 4 for different things), it's only fair on other OSM contributors to edit the profile of each and make it clear that they're just a "sock puppet" of another user, so that people don't communicate with them thinking they are an unconnected user.

It's interesting - there's clearly something there on some of the imagery sources (e.g. Esri) but it doesn't really match what was deleted in this changeset, and is clearly incomplete.

Incidentally on way/142594639 , from changeset/87190442 , I moved the PO out to a separate node node/9881914107 , but (from having a look around the last time I was in there) the opening hours look sensible.

Привіт,
На https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/862004447 ви змінили "religion=christian" на "religion=sect". Що стало причиною зміни?
З найкращими побажаннями,
Енді

Hello,
On https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/862004447 you've changed "religion=christian" to "religion=sect". What was the reason for the change?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello AnkEric_DONE,
Can you explain what you are doing here? What sort of source is "Not so good OSM Mapping can now be resolved by Renderer; ".
Splitting to add a fixme mechanicaly adds no benefit to OSM; please don't do it.
Best Regards,
Andy

By "content free" I just meant that it didn't confirm the name used here, and that it was 11 minutes of my life that I won't get back. :)

Thanks, and sorry that the reverts of the rubbish that "DRPS PHCA" added were long enough after their addition that other tidying up had been done first.

@LockOnGuy You're being somewhat disingenuous here when you say "At the end, please discuss this matter first with the Sharjah, and Ras al-Khaimah communities before you edit their boundaries again. "
I suspect that no-one in Sharjah or Ras al-Khaimah claims that these 3 islands are de-facto part of their emirates (they may well be de-jure part of them, but that is a different issue).
See also comment on changeset/123563171 .

Yes, generally speaking I'd expect the Ras al-Khaimah and Sharjah "admin_level=4; boundary=administrative" borders to not include places that aren't de-facto parts of the UAE https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1knY , although of course "boundary=disputed" areas for all de-jure parts of the UAE would make sense.
However, I suspect that there are many places around the world where "admin_level=4; boundary=administrative" borders overlap in OSM, because many countries "pretend to administer" areas that they don't control.

Bonjour,
Vous avez mentionné que "Le nom de city_limit n'est pas écrit en majuscule comme sur le panneau" (en référence à mon retour de changeset/113388428 , que vous pouvez voir sur https://www.openstreetmap .org/node/1312639759/history).
J'ai fait ce retour parce qu'un certain nombre de changements dans changeset/113388428 ("Corrigé avec Osmose") n'étaient essentiellement que des suppositions par un utilisateur.
Merci d'avoir corrigé ce retour.
Cordialement,
Andy

Hello,
You mentioned that "The name of city_limit is not written in uppercase as on the panel" (referring to my revert of changeset/113388428 , which you can see on node/1312639759/history ).
I did that revert because a number of the changes in changeset/113388428 ("Corrigé avec Osmose") were essentially just guesses by a user.
Thanks for fixing this revert.
Best Regards,
Andy

Castleton, not Bagby.

Just checking - should https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/1058587135 be primary or secondary? I've tried to revert the DRPS PHCA changes but it failed here (and on some others) because a later change had already been made.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Re https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/28571894
For info, I've just reverted some spurious edits by "DRPS PHCA". Can you check that you haven't removed the "wrong" duplicate here?
Best Regards,
Andy

This place has been subject to edit wars both here and on wikipedia.

Could you explain in a bit more detail what was changed here? I'm guessing that the wiki page was tidied up and the link from here was corrected, but it'd be good to know
Thanks,
Andy

Re "Also, what designation do movie homes get?" generally speaking, they don't.

If a house appeared in a movie once but there's nothing on the ground to indicate that, then it shouldn't be mapped in OSM.

Likewise "tourism=attraction" is only valid if the place genuinely is a tourist attraction - i.e. people visit it AND are invited in. If that's not the case here (and I suspect that it isn't) then it shouldn't get the "tourism=attraction" tag in OSM. Similarly it shouldn't get the name "Eilish House" unless that really is the name of the property (and again, I suspect that this is not the case here).

The video you have linked to seems to be almost entirely content-free.