To add my changeset comment, due to character limits, the superseding organizations either do not conform to strict boundaries as a layer of the government, or are NGO's or similar, without strict boundaries. Though all of the superseding organizations have defined boundaries for existing projects, but these are more akin to development areas or project boundaries aligned to existing real property uses.

Thank you for taking time to contribute to OpenStreetMap, but I question if some of buildings you identified as castles and palaces are in fact able to be identified as such, or that the names used for them are appropriate or correct.

Likely added accidentally. My log for this changeset doesnt include my putting the tag in so it probably got dragged in from somewhere. I am not in a situation to adjust, but there is no particular reason to my knowledge that it should be attached to this object, at least in this manner.

Based on data and research I had made while looking into this it appeared as if each of the separate sections were indeed separate entities. Admittedly, research on this was not great as details are sparring. Discussion had been made via Slack regarding this as well. Consensus was not reached. Typically these wetlands reserves are private property that has a IUCN designation, which is itself noteworthy enough for inclusion.
As with any edit on OSM, if you reasonably believe this can be improved upon please feel free to make appropriate changes.

Completely missed that in my cleanup. That was never meant to be published. That is very terribly formatted metadata in a format technically usable my the database. It is not meant for publication, and slipped my review process. I appreciate the quick action to correct it. I'm reviewing any edits I have made recently for similar errors, and will review my edit process to ensure I am following standards etc. as expected.

While the additions do look great, I would recommend a different changeset description. Your description says that you added buildings in Tennessee, but this change set appears to be completely in North Carolina.

I used the incorrect tag in creating this. Thank you for noting the error. I will correct the error.

I went through my notes, and I too believe this to be the issue. I am sorry about the confusion. I'm going to review past edits to clear this up, and hopefully this will no longer be an issue.