camp sites were imaginary. Is the hostel also?

Honestly do not remember which sign there was(if any), that made me tag it this way. For me it feelsa bit more logical to use access:bicycle on gates and bycycle=designared/yes/... on roads. But looking at tagging both are in use.

Parandatud

I took a quick look at Estonian edits.
at least one was from wikimapia for sure. There were duplicates, some because some of those old cemeteries are now parks. There are redundancies in names.
There are stone graves, that are hard to concider as cemeteries.
Few edits that added new info, but would have needed a better geometry.

Meililistist läbikäinud mõtte peale tekkis lootus, et äkki saab asju teha inimlikult ja lihtsalt. Küll aga paistab, et piiride kohapealt on tööriistad ja mõtted wikis pidama jäänud 8 aasta tagusesse aega kus niimõnigi riigipiir sisaldas veel auke.

Paistab, et hetkel tuleb veel jätkata vanaviisi. Teen mingil hetkel selle admin relatsiooni ümber.

This is already on the buglist but the development of Merkaartor has been very slow in the last years.

Hi, it was somekind of strange copy-paste error. Thanks for noticing!

Just in case asked from the last editor what surface=dirt ment. It came out that he only splitted the ways to add tunnels. The surface tag was added 4 years ago.

About the wiki changing: the wiki page of highway=services should have say'd that this tag automatically implies area=yes on ways instead of insisting of adding area=yes to every single way. This can be done because the other option of closed way tagged an highway=services in the meaning of a non area makes no sense.
A change like this on a wiki requires going through the tagging list. That in turn requires a person with quite 'thick skin' and you seem to fit.

About "highway=services" do you really believe everything that is written or not written in the wiki?

I do agree that the changeset comment « un-discussed mass edits » does not fit for those river changeset reverts. Nevertheless there is a waterway relation model for the thing you did with a multipolygon relation.

I do not know why osm.org/changeset/27641137 was reverted, because I'm not the person who reverted it. Frederik probably can explain why he did add this changeset for reverting.

In this case I am fairly certain that this part is paved by now. At least I have not seen a centerline painted on a dirt. In some places the asphalt seems quite new also. So even if the imagery is some years old, there should be no need to upgrade (temporarily remove) the asphalt in the next 5 or so years.

osm.org/changeset/27640972 5 of 6 changes were wrong (should have been surface=asphalt) and the sixth might have been wrong (felt like compacted on some parts). 5 are fixed with changeset osm.org/changeset/28018519
6.th one I did not touch.
Centerlines are clearly seeable on bing and the road is fairly long so the surface must be asphalt on those 5 roads.

osm.org/changeset/27641137 seems ok. You may redo it. This time with a little bit more descriptive comment. It is hard to notice that a space was removed from the word shared _lane . If a good changeset is in the middle of not so good changesets it might be not noticed.

osm.org/changeset/27661940 , osm.org/changeset/27662224 , osm.org/changeset/27662544 and osm.org/changeset/27662643

You should not make mega relations. These are hard to edit and even harder to fix as they tend to broke extremly easily.
You should instead make a waterway relation of relations and ways to group the separate pieces of river parts together. See: osm.wiki/Relation:waterway

osm.org/changeset/27631195 , osm.org/changeset/27632063 , osm.org/changeset/27632063 , osm.org/changeset/27631975 and osm.org/changeset/27632063 same as osm.org/changeset/27631744

osm.org/changeset/27631744 - highway=services is ment to describe areas and makes no sense on ways. It would be ok to assume that this tag implies area=yes automatically. You should have made this change in the wiki not in the data. In case of wiki change a drop of note to tagging list would be also.