@cartofy I don't know what your "area of interest" is (and honestly, don't care). But if you paid a slight attention to only a few changes that have been included in this changeset, you would see these were country-level changes (indeed, to the name:* tags on them). This would give you a hint why the very simplistic "draw a simple box" area-of-changeset approach chosen by OSM developers (as opposed to any number of more informative and meaningful approaches to showing what's changed) produced what it produced. But indeed, if throwing off-the-cuff questions/comments at other editors demanding explanations in this form is your cup of tea, this will simply get you ignored next time. As you can see above, I've been nice to you and answered your question first before hinting at you to avoid disrespectful comments. You clearly didn't get the hint ;)

@cartofy Your conclusions were not based in fact, and so pretty much the only thing you demonstrated was your being opinionated

E.g. incorrect stress marks removed. You can diff the versions to know exactly what changed if you need to know.

@cartofy: if you don’t know what I fixed (as implied by your question) then why did you claim these changes were random?

@Jeff Underwood. Additionally, you mentioned a “public domain reference map” in your original edit when you added this boundary. Can you explicitly provide a reference to this source?

Again, this wasn’t for initiating a discussion, but rather for someone more knowledgeable about the situation there to fix the tags based on the issues hinted at by the questions. I agree the form (questions) as an imperative (“just fix me”) could be confusing, but it was the latter that was intended.

Yes, it should be side_stream

@SomeoneElse - This was not a mistake. Goes under rubric “new/existing objects elsewhere”. The editor I use doesn’t easily allow splitting edit into multiple change sets based on geographic proximity. So sometimes edits from multiple areas accumulate and have to be committed all at once

Редактор, которым я пользуюсь на ходу, не позволяет исправить эти маршруты сразу. Поэтому расставляю тэги для себя и для других

The fixme comment was not intended as a discussion, but as a point to be fixed. I’ll restore it now

Что вы имеете в виду под «выберем все»? Тут отмечены только конкретные недавно изменённые маршруты. А какие все вы хотите отметить?

При чем тут, входит или не входит. В версии 8 Вы оставили саму буферную зону, но удалили ссылки на её определение. Это и было восстановлено

But if you still do it by using only crude tools for that, don’t try to blame your overload on other editors ;)
By the way, here’s another tool for you - maybe it will help reduce your workload:
https://dev.overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=120521090&relations=true
Cheers

By the same token, monitoring changes in a local area most of the time is unnecessary anyway

Oh, surely there are other tools as well. Take this one for example: https://dev.overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=119489812&relations=true

And why? Just because the bounding box _visually_ covers large area, doesn’t mean the changeset itself is large. I see no reason to artificially break anything down further. The changes are consistent between themselves within a changeset - which I think is more important

“No one not there is in need to know” - Couldn’t agree more with this. But it sounds to me like whatever tool is used by “someone not there” to flag this edit as covering something beyond the scope of the edited places, is just grossly misrepresenting the regions edited. E.g. OSM’s natively shown bounding-box rectangles are just a pain that provides misleading information on the scope of the edits. Artificially limiting one’s edits to a small geographic region to avoid a software/visualization issue like this, sounds like a wrong solution. This should be solved in the software, and not by the editors actions.

In this changeset I’ve updated some language-specific tags, like name:*

With this answered now, let me say that there’s often a confusion about what “large” means. Just because the “bounding box” on the map shows a large area, doesn’t mean the scope of the updates is large. I know the box is the easiest thing to see at a glance - but you shouldn’t be calling changesets “large” based on the box alone. This particular changeset is a good example of being small while covering spread out areas on the globe

Why?

Typographic changes: hyphens replaced with dashes

Из-за стилизованности текстов на монументах и табличках, часто сложно (да и ненужно) разобраться, где стилистика, а где сам текст/информация. Примеры: прописные/строчные буквы, дефисы/тире, переводы строки, использованные взамен знаков препинания и т. п. Поэтому нет смысла (да и невозможно) отобразить точную стилистику при переводе надписей из графического представления на монументах в чисто текстовую информацию в тэгах. В этом случае лучше руководствоваться правилами языка.