Well, relations, as they are called, serve several purposes.

If they are of type "type=boundary" and "boundary=administrative", they form boundaries of countries, states, counties, cities etc.

In this case, the boundary of Niassan was added to the database several years ago. It essentially consisted of the admin centre and the outer line. In this case here, the outer line consists was only one straight way and thus could also stand on its own, so it would not be directly wrong to delete the relation, but is is not correct to empty it and leave it in the database (JSOM should have warned you about uploading an empty relation).

In this case, I decided to restore the old state and keep the relation. This has the advantage that the boundary can be displayed on https://wambachers-osm.website/boundaries/.

Were there any problems with it being present?

was it on purpose to empty osm.org/relation/5193118?

I just partially reverted this changeset, because some admin relations were negatively affected by it.

Are you sure the relations you deleted should actually be deleted? Especially, the country of Liberia still exists, doesn't it?

osm.org/node/5098350993 wurde ebenfalls verschoben, wodurch eine weitere Selbstüberlappung ausgelöst wurde.

Sind diese beide Änderungen gesichert und betreffen sie auch die PLZ-Bereiche? Falls nicht, müsste man an der Stelle die Grenzverläufe voneinander lösen.

Beide Verschiebungen betragen übrigens jeweils weniger als 5 m.

[Node 363995341](osm.org/node/363995341) liegt nun *in* einem Haus. Das sollte glaube ich nicht so sein. Dadurch kam es auch zur Selbstüberschneidung von PLZ-Bereichen.
Kannst du da nochmal schauen? Gerne kann ich die Rückverschiebung an die alte Stelle auch übernehmen.

Alas, this was not a correction. Some of the admin relations you edited are broken now.

Could you have another look at them?

You added some tags to two of these lines: area=96.892839629211494, pop_densit=551.547464234791960 and
poptotal=53441.000000000000000.

Lines do not have an area, nor do they ahve a population. You should better have it added to the relation it refers to.

Besides, the "area" tag means something completely different.

And to express an integer number with ".000000000000000" at the end is something… very special.

I assume the removal of "boundary=administrative" on the Douala V relation was by accident, so I just restored it.

Alas, this changeset left the Walkertown admin relation in an uncleaned state. The several parts of the US 158 were used as boundary sections as well. Would you mind repairing it?

Sorry, vergessen den Changesetkommentar einzutragen.

Richtig wäre: "Wanderwege anhand von Wegezeichen eingetragen"

Alas, this changeset removed a lot of boundaries and thus left some boundary relations broken. I fixed them.

Oh, and relation 5525866 was affected as well.

This change didn't work so well. Alas, relation 5477216 was damaged by it. Would you mind having another look at it and fix it?

What was wrong with way 217397671? It was missing subsequently in several relations…

1940th century. Genau.

Thank you!

Are you sure about this change? Here, you changed the administrative relation of Santa Ana to be one big building, but without a complete outline. Would you mind to check this again?

What exactly is "#Barangay Settler"? That's not a valid wikidata entry. Instead, you should change it to the Q… number shown in the corresponding wikidata URL.

Yes, that's a probable reason. That happens to me all the time as well :-)