Finemang!

Hej!
Skulle det ha varit bicycle=yes (inte =no) här?

Hej!
Kan man komma förbi till fots och med cykel är det bra att sätta bicycle=yes och foot=yes.
Annars fungerar inte ruttningen.

Toppen!

Hej!
Ska det vara en amenity=guest_house tagg också?
tourism=guest_house

Hej!
Då detta inte är en byggnad kanske leisure=park är lämpligare? leisure=dance kanske är lämpligare på själva byggnaden där man dansar?

Aha, det förklarar saken.
Tack för att du fixade!

Hej!
Vad försökte du göra här?
Själva byggnadens ytterlinjer ska inte ha building:part eller några våningsplan eftersom det finns separata polygoner med building:part och våningsplan.

Toppen! Tack!

The problem is not if this particular road can flood or not. The problem is that you have made almost 46 000 changesets and you keep, in a large scale, "fix" problems that isn't a problem and replacing them with lies. You are making the map worse, and I assume you are paid by Microsoft to do so. More vandalism to the map means more money for you, I assume.

If we shall discuss this particular road I wonder how skilled you are that can see, from a perpendicular aerial view, if the road is 0.1 or 10 m above the water surface and if that water surface varies a lot or not in height during the year.

Please also answer the question I asked previously. Exactlty what problems do that cause? [when the road crosses the water]

Kan man gå och cykla förbi den är det bra om du lägger till foot=yes och bicycle=yes så att ruttning fungerar.

I visited that road yesterday. It does not vertically lie any closer to the water surface than any of the surounding roads.
I doubt that it, during the latest 100 years, has been flooded even once.

Your problem was that the roads crossed the water area. Exactlty what problems do that cause?
This faulty tag you added causes the problem that it's a lie.

Hello
Why did you add that this road is flood_prone? Do you know that it is that?

Or did you "fix" one fault by adding another? Do you think that this way of working really improves the map?

The changeset you are commenting on is 12 years old.
I have learnt a few things since then, and OSM has also changed a lot during this time.

What is it you want to achieve? If it bothers you that those tags is not mentioned in some kind of list you know of, just forget it and move on to something else where you actually have a chance to improve the map.
If you think the extra tags takes up space in the database, you removing it will take up even more space with the next versions of the polygons.

---In general, not related to this changeset---
Sorry for being a bit harsh, but I'm fed up with people focusing on that everything shall be according to some rules they think applies, and in the armchair mapping process moving forward as a road roller and destroying surveyed information just because it isn't 100% correct.
What is considered correct has changed a lot during the years OSM has existed. If we would have removed instead of improved what is not at that moment 100% correct we would not have as good map as we have today.

I think it's quite rude to remove information people have tried to add. Even though they have made it not technically correct.

In OSM you should always try to improve the map. By removing information, maybe from someone who knows that area, just because it's not 100% technically correct is not what I think can be called improving the map.

Hello
You have removed the information that theese buildings are houses.

Why not use the information added by the user and change it to building=house when you remove the name.

It is values from imported nature reserves.
For example _OBJECTID_= 2591962 is the identity of that specific boundary imported from government data.
It has a value when the imports will be updated. But there is no value to make it an OSM tag and there is no corresponding OSM-tag that is suitable.
So just leave it as it is.

Hello
Was this perhaps intended to be a bench?

Hej!
Om det är tillåtet för cyklister och fotgängare att passera dessa bommar kan du sätta foot=yes och bicycle=yes. Annars fungerar inte ruttning förbi dessa.

It's from an old import. You can find it in many places in Sweden. You can remove it if you are editing the forest. It does not contain any valuable information. But it doesn't do any harm so don't create changesets just to remove it.