Welcome to OSM. Are you sure there's a circular power line? It doesn't look right

Is it intentional that osm.org/way/53237975 is not oneway, and yet has restrictions that prevent going south?

Perhaps the IL wiki is conflicting with the global guidelines in this regard; we're using track exclusively for unpaved.

:)

Hi, you added a multipolygon with one member. Why? I've edited it: osm.org/way/531654910

Thanks for the fix, and welcome to OSM :)

Was the Wikidata removal on purpose? https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2521591

Thank you for the thorough comment. You changed my mind. I now agree that the attorney example is too self-promoting and could have been 3-4 words, and that its word redundancy is spammy.

Hello, welcome to OSM.
.
You requested a review. Your edit looks good.
.
You improve it by marking the entire area as a pitch and not just a point.

I agree to that line. (And I'd suggest leaving the description too if it's factual and not spammy).
.
But the second POI in particular: The right tagging was used, office=lawyer, and the description is completely factual and not spammy, "Personal injury attorney assisting clients throughout McAllen & Pharr Texas who have been injured in car, motorcycle & truck accidents."
.
osm.org/node/4989363747/history

It seems the majority of this changeset is real, clear cut spam, though.

Just another comparison to draw a clear line between spam and self-interest driven neutral edits:
SPAM: osm.org/node/4885634483/history
.
Not spam: osm.org/node/4989363747/history

For comparison, this is something I would flag as spam for the excessive ad tone, and I would justify its removal: osm.org/node/5135107648/history

Although the intentions are clearly good, in my humble opinion this is harming the map and must be discussed.

That was one example, but a significant number of your reverts do not remotely qualify as spam, and I think no one would have had any problem if an experienced mapper had added them.

Hi woodpeck. I think your definition of spam is too broad. For instance, this random POI: osm.org/node/4923689269
.
Yes, its editor has only one edit. And yes, the editor has a direct interest in advertising their POI. However, these facts do not make it spam. Let's analyze the removed tags one by one:
.
website: valid site. The site also points out at this exact location, so he's not randomly spraying ads around the map. He added the tags on his real physical shop.
email: seems like a valid shop email, it even has a domain identical to the site
phone: nothing wrong with that.
description: Not the slightest ad tone.
.
Suppose I'm the one who added those tags. I don't think you would have reverted. They're just fine. Now there's nothing wrong for the shop owner to add those same tags, even if out of self-interest.

How come it's a cycleway with no cycle access allowed??

Welcome to Openstreetmap!
.
You should make the angles perfect 90 degrees. Click the building, then click the "square" icon. Viola!

Oh, I was reviewing via OSMCHA and I have a long backlog, and it seems that particular node was added back. Please ignore my comment if all the non spammy nodes were reverted.

For instance, this has a slightly "positive tone" but seems to be a 100% valid node: osm.org/node/5109075827
.
I think your definition of a "spammy description" need to be narrowed.