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.