this edit is vandalism and should be reverted. Please do not upload test data, you are vandalizing the public database.

I agree it is an undiscussed massedit and should get reverted

the way was a “hole” in the trees

You are right that there was a different problem with the map there, because the relation is about tree cover, but someone else had made it a park shortly before your edit. I have now recreated the original situation, but it can take some time for the changes to show up in the rendered map

and don't take the iD one word descriptions too literally. You can find the definitions in the wiki. Traditionally, landuse=forest is used for any managed area covered by trees (have a look on any well mapped area in the world and you'll probably find places which are too small to develop a real forest ecosystem). If you want to find "true" forests, there is not even a clear definition what a forest is, but for OSM you have to exclude at least the small or narrow areas with this tag.

You could also look at the date, if something has been there undisputed in the centre of Rome for many years, it is likely there is some agreement. If you don't agree you should try to discuss with the user who has put the tag, or engage with the local community, e.g. on talk-it-lazio or talk-it.
Have fun mapping,
ciao,
Martin

This is the second time you are modifying the tree cover in Villa Borghese. There is already an object for the park itself. Please study the situation before continuing editing there.

I don't know why, but you have removed a way which didn't have tags but was part of a relation (and had its sense). Please take care when removing features, especially when using the iD editor, which might not always show in an evident way the purpose of a feature (have a look at relation memberships, not only tags, and have a look at "all tags", not only the ones highlighted by iD).

maybe this is an iD issue. You are the second person in short time who adds a park tag to the tree covered areas of Villa Borghese. Please take care when modifying the existing map, there is already an object for the park, which has the park perimeter, your edit on the tree perimeter doesn't make sense.

Hi, I just found this edit and wonder whether this is a documented bot? Are you aware of the automated edits code of conduct and following the provisions?
osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct

Hello Bryce, there is an issue with the wetap namespace tags. Tags like wetap:status and object level source tags and wetap:photo should rather be standard tags (to avoid tag fragmentation). The edits I have seen so far are rather old, do you still use these tags?

Hello Bryce, there is an issue with the wetap namespace tags. Tags like wetap:status and object level source tags and wetap:photo should rather be standard tags (to avoid tag fragmentation). The edits I have seen so far are rather old, do you still use these tags?

Hello Bryce, there is an issue with the wetap namespace tags. Tags like wetap:status and object level source tags and wetap:photo should rather be standard tags (to avoid tag fragmentation). The edits I have seen so far are rather old, do you still use these tags?

Hello Bryce, there is an issue with the wetap namespace tags. Tags like wetap:status and object level source tags and wetap:photo should rather be standard tags (to avoid tag fragmentation). The edits I have seen so far are rather old, do you still use these tags?

Hello Bryce, there is an issue with the wetap namespace tags. Tags like wetap:status and object level source tags and wetap:photo should rather be standard tags (to avoid tag fragmentation). The edits I have seen so far are rather old, do you still used these tags?

Io non capisco com'è successo che Polline Martignano è diventato il Quartiere Ostiense in questo changeset.
relation/3309225/history

"Everybody will reasonably understand it is likely part of the complex's ownership, even if not included with the specific building tagging, so I don't think this is an issue at all." --> I was arguing that "Palazzo Braschi" probably includes the courtyard, but in building=* it shouldn't be included. Of course we could put only the name on the outline, but then it wouldn't be clear to what it refers. Anyway, this is nothing particularly relevant for this changeset and we should better speak somewhere else about it. As I had written: sorry for the noise.

OK, sorry, maybe I was too fast. I agree the tagging on the way in question (Palazzo Braschi) was somehow questionable as well. On the one hand, the inner yard can arguably be seen as part of the palazzo, also of the name "Palazzo Braschi", but on the other hand, this inner part isn't building=yes.

this seems to be an undocumented semiautomated edit. Moves tags from the outlines of the features to the multipolygon, i.e. it removes the properties from the "holes". Please undo this. There is a difference between tags on a way and tags on a multipolygon relation, in case the relation has holes.
We do not tag things differently due to some software that currently has problems interpreting correct data.

there are some problems with this edit.
It spans half of the globe. Please create smaller changesets. Also, the ice cream parlour Frigidarium which it added, was already present in the map, and the tags that were used are for a sweets shop (confectionery), not for an ice cream shop.

This "correction" deleted a quite complex way that described a tree covered area: 201393173