JM82 (2018-08-24 06:59:10+00:00): I would now like to comment on the allegations made here regarding this changeset as follows:
In the OSM-Inpector (https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=15.8752&lat=46.9491&zoom=12) there are regular errors with multi-polygons in this region, which unfortunately do not only affect this one CS, but the entire region around Szentgotthard. MPs are not closed, are faulty and often incorrectly set.
At this point, I would like to make a reference to the German OSM Forum, where (exactly two years ago) exactly this problem is being discussed on an ongoing basis. It is particularly bad in this region of HUN, as here often every single field, every meadow is created as MP, which is also not a member of a real MP relation, but simply placed as MP alone. This is according to the wiki of OSM, which also exists in English, not the intention of MPs and they should not be used like that either. Why and why does the HUN community shun here and describe it as a "Hungarian mapping style". In addition, these MPs / landuse areas do not correspond to the aerial photos that are available via OSM today, but more on that later. In short, the timeliness is not given.
That's one reason why I've deleted some MPs and replaced them with simple, usually much smaller, land areas.

It should also be noted that the OSM data in this region appears to come from (semi-) automatic imports that were carried out many years ago. This leads in this context also to the problem of MPs in general and their use.
Another reason, in some areas of the area, is that MPs are already so large (in terms of both surface area and number of members) that editing has become almost impossible for some editors. But that's exactly what OSM lives by: the timeliness of the data and its change! Landscapes are changing, even in West HUN, land uses are changing (fields are turning into meadows and vice versa, towns are getting bigger, new buildings are being added).
Smaller land areas are editable with all editors, changeable and so on. Numerous MPs in this region are just that, because they have grown so big that nobody can handle them.
The next reason for my changes was that the JOSM editor constantly points to errors of MPs in this region as part of its review: non-closed MPs, interchanged inner / outer relations. These are exactly the errors that come along because of this excessive use of MPs, which - due to the local landscape, should by no means be set in this way. For this reason, I have also begun some time ago to bring the MPs in their extent as well as the number of their members to a reasonably workable measure. Furthermore, I have corrected many Landuse tags for the existing aerial images and erwweitert.
Likewise, for the sake of completeness, I would like to point out that I am not against MPs per se, but they try a) to avoid, b) use sparingly and c) make changes if I am
Rather, OSM in this region was apparently imported semi-automatic years ago and no one has taken this data, because these are not only often outdated (testing via Bing, geoimage.at maxRes or other image service providers), but also often inaccurately mapped. That's obvious

Another reason was the addition of landuse areas. As you can see clearly, I have supplemented numerous landuse areas (mostly fields, but also meadows), since the quality and the mapping style in this region is often catastrophic: over a few square kilometers simply arable land is stretched over it, with no aerial picture in it Are to be reconciled.

To the individual points further:
"Making huge changes with no comment is a terrible thing to start with, and the fact that they are mostly simplifications".
OSM is a community, act like you are trying to be a member and not a destructor of it. "
I have not made any major changes in this CS by far, as can easily be understood. To change a MP or parts of it can hardly be called such.

Multipolygon-based landuse structure is adopted and preferred by the local OSM community and many other mappers follow that mapping style like this is a vandalism that does not make sense in the future. "
What is the meaning of mapping every single land area as an MP? The effort only increases, there is no recognizable added benefit of this measure. Only because I do not map land areas as MP - without worsening the informative value of the data - is that in your opinion vandalism? A strange, almost incomprehensible definition of vandalism.
Where did I make systematic changes here? I've added additional Landuse tags and overhauled existing ones that did not fit together with the aerial photo altogether or not at all. That is verifiable by means of appropriate aerial photographs.