This is the third time. Would you be so kind as to answer the questeion, thanks.

Ich habe vergessen zu schreiben, dass ich die meisten Fehler nach diesem cs berichtigt habe (ich hätte einen revert machen sollen, wäre besser gewesen).

Ich bitte dich in deinen Kommentaren anzugeben was du geändert hast "resolved". Ich wohne selbst in diesem Stadtteil und weiss ungefär wie viele errors/varnings der Validator des Editors hervorbringt. Es ist nicht gut, dass diese Fehler/Warnanzeige nach deinen edits "issues resolved" sprunghaft ansteigen.
Nach diesem deinen edit waren alle entrance-nodes losgelöst und von ungetagten nodes ueberlagert (duplicate nodes). Diese nodes (etwa 25 St) sowie alle Gebäudelinien hatten alle deinen uid. Ich kann mir vorstellen, dass du die Gebäudelinien markiert hast und dann grösserflächig die nodes gelöst hast, aber mir ist unklar wie die doppelten nodes zustande gekommen sind.
Dann hast du in einem anderen edit die Strasenbahnlinjen an 2 Stellen ueberlagert. Ich frage mich ob du weisst was du tust.
Desshalb die Bitte genau anzugeben was du "resolved" hast, damit es leichter ist etwaige Fehler zu bereinigen. Danke!

In cs changeset/42232997 you have labeled one of the buildings nodes (node/4405997629/history) with:
addr:housename=Svinstian (eng. The pigstay),
name=Svinstian aka. Grisebo (eng. Pigstay aka. Pighome).

You did not give an answer to my comment with the question if this was a joke or ment seriously. Now it is highly unlikely that a residential home in Sweden has one of these names. I do think this could be thought of as offensive by those living in that home and even to others glancing on any map produced by data from osm. If it is you yourself who is living in that house and this is your way of calling the building in private then you should abstain from labeling your privat lingo in this way in osm.
However there might be a legitimate reason to lable the building this way (allthough aka. in the name-tag should be replaced by alt_name). One never knows.
Please either remove those "names" or place a note-tag stating the reason for this highly unusual labeling as this will most certainly attract attention by other users of osm or mappers. Thank you!

Was waren eigentlich die issues die du gefixt hast? Nach deinem cs waren auf einmal ein Haufen entrance-nodes frei-schwebend in der Gegend. Also nicht an den Gebäudelinjen festverankert.
Einen deiner cs habe ich revertiert weil die Strassenbahnstrecken auf einmal übereinander lagen.
Gib bitte in deinen Änderungskommentaren deutlich an was du geändert hast.

Please do let me supplement this case w the cs in which you were vandalising (vandalism = because it took other mpppers time and effort to restore the orig data). So that we know what we are talking about:

a) https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=101877215

b) https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=99671779

c) https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=99672241

d) https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=101874492

e) https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=100832540

f) https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=101843824

g) https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=118911848

i) https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=120782789
This cs wasn't appreciatet by an other mapper either; take a look att their comment on your "fix"-cs: way/736830291.

Thank you!

It's a bit tragic:

a) in your argument in your last before the last comment you are acknowleding what I am saying all along; you are in for changing correct tagging; that's your business,

b) you seem to be unaware of what an edit war is.

Don't construct a victim-ship for yourself! Within 4 hours after I had - correctly - tagged this way w "path" you "dared to disagree" by changing to "cycleway". You could simply not abstain. You did not correct an error of mine by doing this.
Mind you it is easy to retreive the changesets in which you on a rather big scale changed from "path" to "cycleway". By this you were daring to show your disagreement (your words). But again, it was not any error-correction from your part - for which I had been greatfull - but tampering with correct tagging.

Again: it is repeatatly and consistant tampering with correct tagging from your side which I am against. Nothing else.

So you are acknowleding that you "dared to disagree" (by changing my correct tagging, mind you, not wrong tagging). Your retagging of correct tagged ways is what is at heart.
It is one thing to correct wrongly tagged objects. But it is a totally other thing to alter correct tagging for personal preference as you were doing.
By consistantly, I mean consistantly. You were for some time making a "grand journey" on the on the west coast of Sweden so to say. And by far the most editing you were engaged in at that instant was retagging from "path" to "cycleway". I know as you know this, because I did the revert changes after your edits which showed your "disagreement".
It is this behavior I am against. Once again: repeatatly and consistantly changing correct tagging because you favour another tagging.

By the way. The water outlet, which you refered to as fountain, isn't this an outlet for watering animal pets? In this case "drinking=no" refers to humans as the outlet is rather near the ground. Or is my recollection wrong?

It is not a question of disagreement, but of you consistently changing correctly tagged ways because you personally favor an other way of tagging. The worst thing is you do not state this explicatly and give reasons for this, but rather you comment this with "fix". This could well be deemed as vandalism or at least lack of respect for other users edits.
But let's wait and see what DWG has to say about this.

Well don't use fountain when it's not a fountain.

I do see this as a vandalism light from your side. This is not the first time you did this. My tagging was totally correct as seen in:

a) highway=path#Usage_as_a_universal_tag

b) osm.wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren

So there is absolutly no reason att all for you changing correct tagged ways only because you prefer an alternative tagging. As you have done this earlyer in grand style otherwhere I will report this to DWG.

This way was tagged by me as a combined foot- and cykelway, according what the wiki states. This was a correct tagging. Why would you change to cycleway with comment "fix"?

Again; why are you tagging this as a fountain (it is not) and why are you tagging this as drinking water no (which it is)? https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domkyrkobrunnen

Tack för ditt svar! Frågan varför du taggade om vägen till en ren cykelväg när du själv hade konstaterat att skylten D6 fanns på plats kommer väl aldrig att få ett svar ...

Känner du till skyltningen på stället? Jag har taggat om till gc-väg. Gör gärna en koll: https://www.google.com/maps/@59.340721,17.6955271,3a,30.2y,300.42h,87.74t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sh6AZwKToHXkwK0-NfsFgBA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dh6AZwKToHXkwK0-NfsFgBA%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D15.76761%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=sv

Hej, så routing för fotgängare är inte viktigt? Routingen för dem till busshållplatsen fungerar inte längre sedan du bytte till "cycleway" tillsammans med "bicycle=yes". Vad var anledningen till att du bytte från "footway"+"bicycle=yes" till "cycleway"?

Ja, ich bin mir bewusst, dass das Aufteilen der Strasse nicht geht. Ich habe den maxheight-tagg weggenommen ausser direkt unter der Bruecke.