Hi CENTSOARER, thanks for reaching out!

Due to the size of certain large features such as cable lines and admin features, the boundary box of this reversion spans a much greater length than the majority of the edits made in the reverted changesets in San Luis Potosí. There were quite a few issues created in the data in these changesets which I can provide a few examples of.

The changesets included the removal of existing administrative boundaries (Ex: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163078254 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/376223042). I also noticed that some existing features, such as administrative boundaries, were repurposed into highways (Ex: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1363961568 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1086536092). This practice can lead to the loss of valuable history that are tied to those features (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Keep_the_history). Another issue the changesets introduced were many overlapping or duplicate ways, which can create issues with data validation and routing (Ex: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1086537971 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1086537529). There were also other features types such as railways and cables that were modified inaccurately (Ex: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1211031679 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1145445516).

It might help to visualize the data issues if you run an attic query or take a look at the OSMCha changesets and zoom into the areas where the bulk of the edits were made. I hope that explains the reasoning behind these reversions a bit better, but please reach out if you would like anything clarified better.

Have a nice day!