Add it as changeset tag or mention it in a changeset description.

What is the real source of way/489075975/history

It is not Bing as road completely mismatches what is visible on aerial images.

Note that large bounding box was caused by edit to relation/8197673

is_in is also a bad idea (and more and more often removed).

I will not repeat my edit. But note that duplicating OSM data, solely to make processing a bit easier is often considered as a bad idea.

Then please, link it in all changesets that are part of this import.

Caching values of calculations as OSM tags is not a really good reason.

It is possible to use larger extracts or to fetch entire object using for example Overpass Turbo.

"what it is" - it was marking of nonexisting historic object, right?

Or to be more exact - currently existing objects that are closest to its likely location.

"no roman road belongs in OSM because there aren't any romans here any more" - whatever romans are here does not matter at all, what is important whatever the roman road exists.

There are many roman roads that are still existing and mapping them makes sense.

Mapping guesses of likely route of no longer existing objects is something different.

Wikidata matching by itself is not requiring it.

But running it automatically for 1500+ objects certainly requires it.

I started preparing large-scale removal of misimported objects.

Documentation is starting at osm.wiki/Mechanical_Edits/Mateusz_Konieczny_-_bot_account/remove_objects_that_are_no_existing_according_to_source_of_import_that_added_them

Bot edit proposal will appear at talk-us mailing list and US OSM slack.

Can you link to a discussion confirming that this automated edit was accepted by OSM community?

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/H7K is simpler and still renderable in the browser

What is the meaning of gns:ADM1 tag at node/52240804/history ?

Are you sure that node/6336751495#map=13/24.9911/121.5452&layers=N fire hydrant is actually named?

name tag is not for describing feature, name tag is for names

Can you look at note/1709836 ?

Why entity owned by Swedish and Danish State is tagged as ownership=private?

I reverted it only partially due to conflict, please check for remaining mistakes and review any similar edits where you damaged OSM data.

For example cs:Lhotka (Ruda) was linked 43 times!

Are you aware that you linked multiple town to a single wikidata/wikipedia entry?

I am reverting this as a careless mechanical edit.

In that case route=bicycle is certainly wrong (it is for cycling routes for travelling, not for cycle races).

And given that route changes and is not signed in terrain it is not something that should be mapped in OSM.

I think that it should be deleted.

Is it useful needed to tag waterway=source node? Is it not enough to tag name on waterway ways?