suspicious changeset. Contains a lot of deletions.

contains a lot of deletions, regarding the deleted ways clearly vandalism.

this is a changeset consisting mostly of deletions of small wooden areas. Even after a year no alternative has been presented, so I consider this vandalism.

There is at least one problem here: this node/3711236775 is a duplicate of another node Gianicolense. Please delete the newer node or fix the name and/or tags to make this more consistent and readable.

FrViPofm, can you tell me where this data comes from? Is it available only for France or also for other regions?

Is this an active school? Then there should also be a way around the whole site with the tag amenity=school
If there is religious affiliation I'd also add the tags religion=christian and denomination=catholic (or whatever it is).

ist der Rossmann ins UG umgezogen? Als ich den gemappt habe war er noch oben, bilde ich mir ein.

well done

this restaurant should likely be inside and not between the building and the road. Please move

The way that was introduced in this changeset
Way: 214125180
Is not an alley. Not at all possible. Please fix (maybe no service-subtag might be better than the clearly wrong service=alley)

I have also surveyed this alley, last time I've been there this wasn't a highway=pedestrian, and if it is now they would have had to tear down a lot of buildings (very narrow, ie not pedestrian which implies a larger width)

clearly a bad changeset, deleted coastline and administrative boundary, but the mapper is new and maybe this was not intentional...

why was this fountain deleted?

Also the user is either actively trying to hide his identity and other pseudonyms within the OSM community or he is a genius and really a new user who has found out just 2 days after signing up, that this particular relation type is useless and how to delete them in a huge area. I tend to believe the former and think that the reason for hiding behind a newly created user is that he is well aware of the controversity of his edit.

I am for reverting this changeset:

1. The user has very likely violated the community guidelines for automated / semitautomated changes (not looked individually at every object he deleted).

2. Deleting this amount of data should generally not be decided unilaterally on an individual basis, even more if it happens far from the home of the user, and when the user is not able to communicate with the local community (user speaks no Italian and has problems with English). This shows some disrespect towards the local mapping community.

should likely also have a place of worship tag

changes the importance of the SP25 from tertiary to secondary. By looking at the map I dispute this decision, seems as if the alternative SP25bis is correctly the secondary road there.

if you can (and there is), please also add a name

the turn restrictions look suspicious. I have no local knowledge but I suppose there are access tags missing on the private road, rather than turn_restrictions.

Changeset without any information added. Graffiti. I will revert this changeset. Please do not add nonesense to the database, you are harming the project.