The undocumented #geostar2023 is not an explanation of what was changed.

osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

These are still quite visible on imagery I wonder if it would be worth retaining the geometry but with a lifecycle prefix indicating that it is no longer usable (and shouldn't be rendered or used for routing).

osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

Do you have a source for the grass area? It doesn't seem to match any available imagery.

way/1218085965

Please split this sort of thing up into smaller chunks. It's difficult to review when it spans a continent or two.

Please save between editing widely separated areas.

Do you intend this to be a "traditional" or a "PTv2" bus route?

Reverted in changeset/142415728

Welcome to OpenStreetMap. If possible please try to improve existing building traces rather than retracing them if they are nearly right.

As you the comment indicates that this edit was for a tennis court I have updated the tag to show it as a tennis court rather than a park. If this is within a larger public facility that can be traced separately.

This is a live database used for realworld applications. It should not be used for tests.

Do you have a source for this name? the website linked indicates that it is for a different park.

Ongoing discussion here:
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mini-roundabout/72751/57

Local knowledge is always welcome on OSM.

The OS maps have to be older than a certain date to be usable. There's guidance for the UK on the wiki but I'm not sure if crown copyright has a different duration in overseas territories.

Do you have any sources for this? The item you linked has associated wikipedia and wikidata.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/140885606

Do you have any sources for this? The item you linked has associated wikipedia and wikidata.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/140885606

Why does a changeset that only mentions Tanzania also have edits in Canada?

Do you have a source for this name.

I think your correction to relation/16094983 has a mistake in it. Instead of `type=multipolygon` it shows as `type=Multipoligono`, which will not be correctly interpreted by software.

I think your new way is going across the Florida Straits rather than along them.

Do you have a copyright waiver for the source you've cited?

osm.wiki/Copyright#Proprietary_dataac