per le chiese conviene usare un tag più descrittivo, invece di building=yes suggerisco building=church.

Per il vecchio monastero: way/393676442 suggerisco il tag historic=monastery (ed anche religion ecc.).

ottima risposta, sono d'accordo con te, che va messo così come si vede nella realtà, ovviamente.
Buon proseguimento!

evventualmente non tutto il way ha quel nome? Possibile che una parte si chiami Strada di Santa Maria la Rocca? Non ne sono certo, non conosco la zona, giusto un suggerimento...

in this case (scuola d'infanzia), il tag è amenity=kindergarten.

PLEASE DO NOT ENTER THE NAMES IN CAPITALIZED FORM. The tag for a school is amenity=school, not landuse=meadow.

If this is a private road, it should not be "highway=unclassified". I have set it to service, but this should be resurveyed (is foot access possible? etc.)

please stop uploading nonsense, I will revert this edit. You are welcome to contribute stuff that makes sense.

this is not a sandbox, you are editing the global OpenStreetMap database, please refrain from making nonesense

please add more descriptive Changeset comments, this is some advice how to provide good comments, and why you should do it: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Please provide a more helpful changeset comment next time (see here: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments ).
This changeset introduced some problems like duplicate objects (San Pietro is already mapped as a relation) and deleted the main entrance, but I have already fixed these. I believe that the edits have been done in good faith, but this particular place is very difficult to edit because it is highly complex and likely not suited for newbies, also the iD editor is likely not suitable for complex situations like this (e.g. a lot of 3D-mapping is present, high density)

the comment for this changeset is not sufficiently explicit and does not tell anything about what was done, why it was done. See here for help how to make your changeset comments more useful:
osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

this changeset introduced a series of unconnected footways, where indeed correct crossing mapping should have been applied. In this form (no connections), the data remained useless until someone fixed it

OK, revert is completed

this is clearly a bad edit, and while I am not sure if it was performed on purpose (vandalism) or because of ignorance (not reading the hints and docu, doing some tests and rather than discarding the changes uploading them), I will revert it instantly.

I think there is a misconception, don't be offended, you are just beginning to map and it is clear that osm has quite a steep learning curve. The comment you added is for the changeset, that is the entirety of all edits which you uploaded in this edit (and which happens to deal, in your case, with the route 651, but reading the comment it wasn't even clear to me that you were referring to a hiking route). Anyway, don't mind, it is not so super important, it would simply have been better if you had written something like "route 651", but it's not worth discussing too much;-)
Have fun mapping!

See also here for reference: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Yes, I was not questioning the number, my suggestion was to add a comment like "created hiking route 651 from survey" or "modified hiking route 651 because it was recently changed", or "improved hiking route 651 by adding trail blazes" or something similar. Just the number requires other mappers to analyze your edit in order to understand what the number refers to.

this is an automated edit and should have been discussed beforehand. Clearly the tag oneway=yes is not wrong on ways that are oneway. The tool "Osmose" should rather be fixed instead of performing huge scale automated edits.

please add a meaningful changeset comment. "651" is not helpful to anyone else besides maybe yourself.

please, use a changeset comment that describes what you have done, and why. "note" does not make sense