Adamant1 (2021-01-14 23:09:05+00:00): The problem with the witch hunting way of doing this is that you treat people like they are doing something wrong or against the guidelines. Not in a way that doesn't fit your personal preference of what would be "nice" to do. There's plenty of things I think it would be "nice" for people to do on here. I don't turn treat them like their vandals (mostly RTFMs approach) or go on multi year campaigns against them for it though. Even with my clear disagreements with RTFM where I think he is intentionally doing things to damage OSM I am still extremely measured in throwing out accusations, saying I think he is, and I don't make things personal or about cultural differences. 

Re: "you act systematically." I am as against actually systematic mass edits as anyone else is. I have asked a ton of people what the definition of a "systematic" edit is though and no one is willing to define it or say what qualifies. Which is a problem if there's going to be witch hunts over people supposedly doing them. In the meantime, the only standard seems to be "more then edit I don't like done intentionally." Likely people aren't willing to define it because it would mean they would have to then follow it, like with Polarbear W's power line revert, and clearly they don't want to. I'd be fine not changing a certain amount objects in an intentional manor over a certain amount of time so it's not a "systematic" edit if it was clear what the word meant and it was actually a guideline. It isn't though and in the meantime, I doubt it ever will be, because people have their hobbies and map things they are interested in. So, it would be ridiculous to have a standard that would stop people from being able to map say like 60 power poles in the same day just because they planned to do it ahead of time or whatever. Which I did yesterday, see nothing wrong with, and fully expect Polarbearing W to receive messages about systematic editing from the witch hunters later due to. 

 "it is toxic to "clean up" things if it is more than just fixing a typo" That sounds more like a personal opinion then anything else. I don't think it's toxic at all to delete a park that is clearly a park in someone's back yard that they mapped for Pokemon Go without contacting them first. Again, it would be "nice" to, but what's toxic is them doing that kind of mapping the first place. Plus, we are all volunteers here and I'm sure we have more important things to do then bicker with 15 years about why their backyard lawn isn't a park. You never know what edit will be a problem and which won't either. 99.99% of my edits do not cause any problems, even these types, and I don't feel like messaging every single person who created a POI before I edit it just because of the 0.01% that "might" be an issue. In this case, it wasn't even the person who created the POI that had a problem with the edit either. You did. So, why should I message them before editing it then, just because you think that would be the "polite" way to do things? There is also some value in "standardization" and I have zero problem with someone re-tagging what I map if a clearly better more accepted tag comes along. With as many edits as I have I don't really have time to review all of them anyway. So, I'm not going to be paranoid and assume everyone else does or is going to throw a fit if I edit "their" POI. 

RE: "Sending short notes", there's plenty of times where I do send people notes or open a note and wait a few years before editing something. I just didn't feel it was needed in this case. 

RE: "back to healthcare", at the time I re-tagged this and the other hospices that I re-tagged there was about 168 of them and I only re-tagged 20. That wasn't a coincidence. There was others that I felt still fit the amenity tag. So, in no way did I think back then that the amenity wasn't appropriate in some cases. It just wasn't here IMO and you assumed that meant I thought no hospice should be tagged as an amenity. 

On osm2pgsql, it should go without saying that we should not tag for rendering. I don't really what is or isn't available to people in certain pieces of software. That's what determines tagging in OSM. If that's the only reason you think it should be tagged as an amenity, then all the more reason to tag it as healthcare IMO.