removes area=yes from this way/23337719

this changed the name from one of the official names "Status Civitatis Vaticanæ" to "Civitatis Vaticanæ" which isn't an official name. I'm going to change this back, and will also add the other official name (in italian).

in this changeset some attributes got removed from the gates (access=private and housenumbers), I have put them back. Generally in Italy it is agreed to put the housenumbers on the gates and doors, because this is where they are assigned to. The amenity=parking is questionable because this is just normal parking in the street.

also see here: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

this changeset spans half the world and the changeset comment is quite bad, as it doesn't provide any information as to what was changed, where or why. Also the amount of higher version ways and nodes that got deleted indicate a possible lack of respect towards other mapper's work. In particular I'd like to complain about way/251509915 which I had mapped after survey, and which was completely deleted (it was a clearly delimited landuse area). The building type was changed from "yes" (=any kind of building) to "office" and the disputed tag "office=government" was added, but I doubt that the mapper has knowledge about the building type in question (I wouldn't consider this an office type). Looks completely like an undiscussed semi-automatic edit to me. Please reply, I'm interested about the details and motivation, and I hope I am wrong with my assumptions.

Anche il changeset comment non sembra pertinente, vorrei segnalare questa pagina wiki nel merito: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments
@Alecs01 suggerisco di contattare la DataWorkingGroup qui: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group#Contact

please do not add duplicates, the station is already mapped in great detail

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