hallo MorbZ, Du hast in diesem Changeset hier sämtliche tags entfernt way/47781496
neben der Adresse auch "height", "note", "operator", und durch 2 neue tags ersetzt. War das ein Versehen?

historic borders should not be included in OpenStreetMap, because we map the observable, current situation.

infatti, quello cancellato da ginfix non era un limite di velocità, era un cartello stradale che indicava un limite. Non vanno tolti, perché sono utili nella mappatura (e sono comunque geodati a se stanti).

There is also already a place=county object for Manhattan, which seems to contain the administrative boundaries:
relation/2552485
And there is already another place=suburb object for Manhattan as well:
node/357644127
I suggest you discuss on your local mailing list (or whereever the comunity is) how to deal with this (likely some tags have to be merged and one of the objects should go. My preference would be to keep the older one and move missing tags to them).

Are you sure that "Manhattan" is not "place=suburb" according to the OSM definition of this tag? For legacy reasons this isn't the same as a suburb in natural language (which would be: "below a city", sub - urbs). In OSM it is "Use place=suburb to identify a major area in a place=town or place=city with a distinct and recognised local name and identity. Suburbs may have uncertain boundaries, may overlap with other suburbs, and are often best mapped using a node.". I.E. place for settlements is following socio-geographic concepts, while the word "county", although in the "place" key, seems to be duplicating administrative concepts.

Ciao Susanna. Ti scrivo perché il caso della via Venturini è stato discusso nella mailing list. I problemi con questo edit sono 2: l'oggetto wikidata non si riferisce alla via ma ad una persona. Il tag migliore per questo tipo di relazione è "name:etymology:wikidata".
L'altro problema è che la Livia Venturini dell'oggetto wikidata originale (attrice) non è la Livia Venturini alla quale è intitolata la strada (partigiana). Qui il riferimento alla mailing list: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/2017-October/060436.html
Saluti,
Martin

why did you replace the specific building value (tower) with a generic „yes“? Please don’t remove details in favor of generic, less informative tags

In other words, you and me can't go there to get a new passport, but this doesn't mean it's not the embassy. There's also a sign in front reading "embassy". It has diplomatic protection, etc. No way this is a "park".

this is part of the German embassy, it is the residence of the Ambassador to Italy, and there are many events taking place here. It is indeed not the chancellery of the German embassy, which is close to Castro Pretorio. But it is part of the embassy.

this changeset makes the residence of the German ambassador a leisure=park and access=private. This seems strange tagging, at least. This is not a park, at most you could see it as a garden, but then the garden would not be the residence but only the garden. As this is about the residence of the ambassador, the object has now lost the diplomatic status (private access is not quite hitting it).

Benvenuto anche da parte mia!

this changeset introduced a lot of duplicate nodes and added a lot of names in the wrong tag (put English names in the tag for the local name). Please do not map for the renderer, rather use a rendering that suits your needs.

From where did you get the name "Area verde Rosa Raimondi Garibaldi"? There aren't any signs with this name, are there?

Secondome non dovresti cancellare "cose" esistenti, siano privati o meno, questi vialetti sono utili anche se non percorribili (per esempio per analizzare la struttura di una zona, oppure per determinare le aree "sigillate" (per l'acqua), oppure per orientarsi (incroci di vialetti con la strada) o per fare un routing che cerca di minimizzare i pericoli (per esempio per bimbi, sempre riferito agli incroci con la strada/marciapiede), ecc. ecc.

IIRR this was discussed on talk-it and still IIRR approved post operam.

si, rimaniamo calmi e cherchiamo di discutere i dissensi. Se proprio devi defecare, non farlo in pubblico, facciamo tutti così ;-)
Quando vedi edits problematici, commenta il changeset. Un saluto, Martin

multipolygons are fine if you can reuse existing geometry or parts of it, but if there are adjacent polygons like the buildings in the eastern part here, you should not add the buildings but rather use only a common outline (i.e. all outside walls can create a closed polygon, do not include the inside walls, do not use overlapping outer ways in mp). I have created a big polygon around everything (and have reused your relation for this), including the outdoor spaces that connect the buildings.

There even a way in version 57 deleted by this. Please be more respectful with other people's work and modify rather than delete / recreate! E.g. way/15564717

looks like an undiscussed mechanical edit. Deletes 767 ways in one changeset, many of which in mature versions (e.g. v19!).

this is likely un discussed import or mechanical edit. Creates also overlapping ways (admin boundaries overlapping 100% roads, with common nodes). The latter does not seem a reasonable way to represent boundaries that are defined by these roads.