@ Emilius123: I don't agree with your change - at least as far as the playgrounds are concerned, which I (always locally "on the ground") tagged with name="Spielplatz". I can't judge others, but I wouldn't just change them either.

I have never tagged playgrounds with name="Spielplatz" as an arbitrary descriptive name, only when there was a sign posted by the city that said "Spielplatz" - also to document that this playground does not have another unique name, as it is the case with some playgrounds here (area Saarbrücken/Germany), e.g. "Kinderspielplatz Hochstraße" (and the same kind of sign is used in both cases!).

I've added "source:name=sign" to these cases lately (e.g.: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1153602072). You didn't remove this either, which is why there is now an Osmose error warning here: "source:name without name" - so your changes were also unclean/incomplete. And if they were consistent, you should have put a "noname=yes" as well. All in all, I don't think it's a good idea to make changes like this that aren't based on checks on the ground and without knowing the local conditions. It is a mass processing and already fulfills the definition of a mechanical processing, as others have written here - unfortunately that is the case.

And I can't see which naming convention policy is being violated here either - can you name a specific one that you feel hurt by (and explain in more detail why)?

The wiki guidelines under "Name is the name only" are in no way violated. And under "Names are not for descriptions" it even says explicitly: "Though note that some lakes are actually named 'The Lake', in such case adding it as a name is fine." (German Wiki: "Manchmal heißen Objekte tatsächlich wie ihre Kategorie, zum Beispiel gibt es Ententeiche namens 'Ententeich', oder Bundesstraßen, die 'Bundesstraße' heißen; in solchen Fällen ist es natürlich in Ordnung, diesen Namen zu verwenden.") And it is not a description either, which would then have to read, for example: "Hedge-enclosed playground with special play equipment for disabled people and picnic tables that are illuminated in the evening."

I realize this is a gray area here, but I find your overly dogmatic, simplistic application of the principle "names are not for descriptions" going too far and I would ask you to undo your changes. Some names can just be names and still be descriptive, I don't quite see why that should be a problem (assuming there is evidence such as a local sign). For example, there are also kiosks called "Kiosk" because their owners find that a sufficient name - why not put that as name=Kiosk? It isn't a "noname" object. It documents the real situation. In any case, I followed this principle. Here the city seemed to consider it sufficient to call this playgrounds "Spielplatz". 

If you are not ready to undo your changes, I will reserve the right to change at least the cases I checked on site again.

If this is discussed in the community and the majority comes to a different conclusion with good arguments, and has a suggestion on how to handle these cases (e.g. with a different tag such as name:signed=Spielplatz?) I find that acceptable. But I don't think it's a good idea to make such changes without any discussion - it's too easy to overlook important aspects.