But, at least source=* & comment=* have improved; so, you're at least reading my reviews, even if not making necessary corrections to previous changesets.

I suggest you start with the basics, such as using StreetComplete. Diving straight into iD is, evidently, a bad idea for newbies.

Sigh. It's frustrating when you persist, without response. Why bother spending the extra time & effort to clean up, when reverting the entire changeset would be so much easier & quicker (and perhaps make the point)?

Once again, osm.wiki/Keep_the_history
Stop deleting elements to simply redraw them. Modify (the geometry), instead.

Even if deleting a way makes sense, keep & reuse the modes. However, you could've reused the existing ways for the residential home, changed their geometry, and retagged.

OSM isn't merely about producing a map, but managing a dataset (hence metadata is important). History (of changes) helps other mappers (it's also very difficult to refind (& restore) a deleted element).

Aside from human factors, deleting & re-adding elements for (what is essentially) the same feature, bloats the database.

If you're not sure how to edit while preserving history, then learn before making any other changes (or, only make additions; lots of buildings need their outline tracing, which is earlier using desktop editors than surveying ones).

Sloppy work doesn't have a net-gain, since it requires cleanup by others. Quality work is what's needed.

Please be much more careful, in future.

When deleting node/1765773927 and tagging way/208575254 you didn't copy the name (which was source=survey) correctly.

Re way/943075541

building=yes was removed, yet it's clearly a building (particularly given residential=apartments). I think you mean building=apartments (landuse=residential is somewhat redundant; better to mark the outline of the whole site (separately to the building outline)).

▪︎source?
▪︎misleading changeset comment — what makes for osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments
▪︎deleted (& re-added) elements: osm.wiki/Keep_the_history

source?

Seems OK.

Re way/179250298

osm.wiki/Keep_the_history

▪︎what makes for osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments
▪︎smaller changeset areas: osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets
▪︎source?

The changes at the Burger Bar / Kiosk look OK, though.

▪︎smaller changeset areas: osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets
▪︎source?
▪︎your changeset comment is misleading, since you also added a node to the islands to the SW (I forget which name, now) tagging it as place=island — what makes for osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Re place=island
No need to add a node; just tag the island's outline way.

▪︎what makes for osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments
▪︎smaller changeset areas: osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets
▪︎source?

What makes for osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

What makes for osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/71605557

aeroway=apron to landuse=meadow ?!

way/699441649 was originally aeroway=apron (and retagged (bizarrely) to landuse=meadow in changeset/71566498 ). Would seem wise to restore (undelete) it.

Re node/9576047159

osm.wiki/Emergency_ward

Should be an area, rather than a node.

Re osm.wiki/Keep_the_history

way/1040003780 being tagged layer=-1 makes no sense (it's underground? how is it a *landuse* then?).
Besides, way/208455075 should be restored (undeleted) and (possibly) retagged.

I'm actually thinking that this should be reverted, for its poor quality.

Deleting & re-adding elements is poor practice, too. Instead, modify existing elements (either geometry, tagging, or both): osm.wiki/Keep_the_history

What's the source for any of these changes?