To me the mess is with our wiki and mailing lists.
Over the years I've spent considerable time in both and i find them to be death eaters that drain the energy from all ideas.
I have a more positive vision of local empowerment with a place for local communities to share ideas with like minded communities and help each other. That way the local communities who want to support this sort of work can help each other to refine the processes, whereas local communities who don't support this work can focus their energy on something that is positive to them.
So yes, what seems arrogant to you, is to me a more positive world of local empowerment.
Looking at the data that has been imported, my first reaction is that
some of the keys/values do look rather non-standard. This suggests to me
that the process might have benefited from wider discussion.
With the tree data, what jumps out is that every single tree has
'constituency' and 'ward' tags. I thought there was a general consensus
that this sort of boundary information should not be added to individual
objects? What purpose do they serve? Isn't it likely that these
electoral boundaries will change in the near future?
There are other things -
There is a 'site_name' key which contains the street name written in all
capitals. Did this need importing, and if so, did it have to be in capitals?
What is the purpose of the 'usrn' tag and has it been documented? I
wonder whether local_ref or ref:usrn would have been clearer.
The height values are formatted in a non-standard way.
The West Midlands community does appear to be happy with these imports
and in my view that counts for a lot. However, I certainly don't
consider them an example of good practice. I don't understand why
sensible import rules have not been followed, like using a separate
dedicated OSM account.