This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/59401395 where the changeset comment is: Delete bogus maps.me personal inappropriate spammage

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/59401071 where the changeset comment is: Delete bogus maps.me personal inappropriate spammage

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/59400930 where the changeset comment is: Delete bogus maps.me personal inappropriate spammage

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/59400067 where the changeset comment is: Delete bogus maps.me personal inappropriate spammage

looking at one or two of these many changesets, it appears that John wanted to delete many untagged ways, all the ones I checked for which the previous editor was some variant on osm-saint-louis or so.
In at least one case, the untagged way was created as v1 that way.
But in many cases, osm-st.-louie had somehow lost the tagging from an object that had earlier been tagged as building=yes or so, before somehow losing that.
It is my guess John should have simply reverted the problem changeset(s), if possible, due to the bug, rather than deleting the ways. But I have not studied in more detail to know if that was possible.

It is worse than that.
https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=59331545
There is significant damage that has been done.
Unfortunately, when user_5359 fixed the syntax errors and made the listing useful, he did not notice the additional damage, like he often does, then reverts the entire changeset to correct the errors.
I'd advocate reverting the entire changeset, also losing 5359's improvement, to restore the data integrity.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/59378079 where the changeset comment is: Delete bogus maps.me campground added to flats in urban area

In this particular case, and knowing it's somewhat controversial, I fed the name as a google text search and the results here indicated where you might have deleted it (as it's no longer trivial to pull up and locate), and that it seems to be active and thriving.
Some results give an address, which is not nearby, but pops into view to the southeast here in Huntsville Alabama.
Panning over that road shows no mapped church, or even likely building. I presume as the church grew, it moved to a larger site. I'm not bothering to see what the search results tell me. I also didn't see if the address I find corresponds to anything mapped, with often poor address coverage.
So, I'm not doing anything with that bit of wasted time, and I don't know if it is helpful. At most I might add a note referring to my search, which maybe in years a local mapper can confirm.

Just checking to see if mapping spammers are doing as bad a job as the bug-report-openers, my eye was caught by the Detroit business on p1 of 4 below.
Looks like this one is a typical name-only one with no type of business, and the node appears to have become attached to a bus stop node I'm sure was dragged across the road by the careless spammer.
As expected, few phone numbers are in the proper format.
On to check the next bunch...

A quick text google on the northeast school name led me to conclude it was taken over by a christian school.
That is indeed reflected in the OSM data. Too bad that label seems obscured by the GNIS node.
Better now than the addition of the `(historical)' so many years ago to mimic the GNIS habit of nodes for long-gone places, would be to use a lifecycle prefix on the node as appropriate.
The building southwest shows another name as well as the node. A similar text search would probably explain this, but i've not studied the results to be sure.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/59326332 where the changeset comment is: Delete bogus maps.me alpine hut in urban area that has a maps.me deletion Note from the creator

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/59289304 where the changeset comment is: Go! Map!! edit!!!1! Precautionary revert. Restoring much deleted data, but a number of changes and additions will be lost here. Unintended conflicts are likely here too.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/59288779 where the changeset comment is: Go Map bug? User deleted multiple items, creating part of a road followed by disconnected nodes where I expect the road to continue. Assuming it must be unintended.

Oh, is this spamming happening again? Guess I better monitor Cyprus for the next months as maps.me auto-generated responses to these pile upon each other...
*sigh*

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/59272511 where the changeset comment is: Delete bogus maps.me personal info castle spam

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/59251255 where the changeset comment is: Improper SEO deletion of detailed-mapped building

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/59205934 where the changeset comment is: Delete bogus maps.me personal info castle spam

Waking up...
G'mornin', damn coffee...
I was hoping this was a simple misunderstanding here, and I'm pleased that is all it is.
As you can see, I reverted for you many of these deletions. It is possible to later revert my revert, after all affected addresses have appeared on each building. That will work if you already have the address data ready for a quick import, and will save the need to delete everything individually again.
If the addresses get added more slowly in smaller chunks, you may find it easier to do all this yourself, deleting one block of interpolation after adding one block of housenumbers. This is up to your workflow, but the option and offer is there.
.
Reverted are these changesets large enough to attract Pascal's attention. Additional changesets at the same time included another small enough to slip under Pascal's radar. Two changesets I reviewed and saw also touched other items, one of which was mentioned in the original comment, and I noted in my revert commentary - neither `Unnamed15 Road' nor `Unnamed Road' should be in the OSM data, just delete that from the name= field.
In the second case you deleted one node from a park outline that was restored, but will (with luck) disappear again should you choose the revert-the-revert route later. Otherwise a quick manual search-and-delete will restore your change.
I only reviewed the changes in text mode to find the above; if you yourself review them as graphic overlay via an achavi URL, you may spot other included changes - I was too lazy to bother.
.
Your first two changesets of this bunch (around a week before I write this) that mention this deletion in the description, also included a number of other modified or added items. I left these alone to preserve your work; as your intention is to replace the rough addressing with specific details, rather than delete them outright, I see no need to lose your other changes and drag us both over a bed of hot coals for a well-meaning misunderstanding.
Thanks for your honesty and openness about your intentions, and I hope what I have done is satisfactory.
As mentioned, the offer to un-restore this data later stands when you are ready, should you choose. If I'm still around, the best way to draw my attention would be in a changeset discussion like this (followup here, or reply to your later changesets adding the addresses). If I'm not off doing something else and I'm still obsessing with OSM, I should see it.
.
thanks again for your cooperation.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/59058965 where the changeset comment is: Restore prematurely-deleted address interpolation, until replacement address info is in place. Original changeset deleted one node from the park outline which is restored here, and should be handled manually again.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/59058779 where the changeset comment is: Restore prematurely-deleted address interpolation, until replacement address info is in place. Reverted road name is no worse than the updated version, and name should simply be deleted entirely.