iD is not suitable for any complex editing by design. I believe this is not a reason to adjust the map data to fit iD's restrictions. Map data should not be adjusted for a particular piece of software i.e. editor/renderer [1]. Furthermore, iD has quite a long history of controversy [2] including related to mapping techniques it promoted.

[1] osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don't_map_for_the_renderer

[2] osm.wiki/ID/Controversial_Decisions

Did you try to find out why was the landuse mapped this way before declaring multipolygons useless and mass-converting them?

Mapping usually isn't one-off action. Once mapped, landuse may need further editing e.g. in order to add previously missed detail or reflect changes on the ground. For me editing landuse mapped as 'simple polygons' is significantly more time-consuming and requires extra effort compared to multipolygons. Should I expect you to maintain and refine the landuse you converted?

Are there any mapping guidelines (OSM wiki?) stating that it was not a valid way to map landuse with multipolygons? Or is it just your personal view on uselessness of certain map features or mapping techniques?

While you correctly admit that it may be easier to use multipolygons to map landuse, it also reduces maintenance and further editing/refinement effort, especially in densely built-up areas. How can you know in advance if I plan to maintain the landuse in question long-term or 'just move a few nodes around'?

Labdien!

Jau dažus gadu desmitus tas nav "slepenais objekts", nekas saistīts ar sakariem vai radio/TV tur arī nav palicis. Turklāt, cik es zinu, "rezerves teleradio centrs" bija citā vietā.

The article you linked clearly says that MoD has prepared a draft law on this military range, it is not effective yet.

There is a wiki page on lifecycle prefixes [1] that includes 'proposed:'.

[1] osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

Hi Tramparam Parampampam,

there is no military landuse yet, it is subject to further approval by parliament, hence the proposed:landuse tag. Also, data should not be adjusted to make things 'visible'.

Hi somix,

These names seem to have quite limited use mostly by real estate agents and are not widely known, so should go into either alt_name or loc_name.

Hi,

While separately mapped sidewalks provide visual information (for the users of certain OSM renders), they also make poor quality data.

Consider two examples [1][2]. Would anyone actually follow the suggested paths when shorter ones are obvious? This results in less precise distance calculations and routing engines providing longer routes, in some cases up to 1--2 kilometers of extra walking.

A solution would be either adding 'virtual' paths to connect ways on the different sides of the street, or tagging sidewalks on the main way, the latter approach being equally valid [3] as the separate sidewalks and likely requiring less maintenance effort.

[1] osm.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=56.95509%2C24.12704%3B56.95574%2C24.12763

[2] osm.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=56.96791%2C24.23397%3B56.96781%2C24.23298

[3] sidewalk=*