Andy from the DWG here. Firstly - thanks for posting here. Many / most of the problematic swimming pools have been reverted, firstly in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163963906 by @Stereo last night, and secondly in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163476128 by me this morning. As you noted above different sorts of editing were mixed together in each of the two accounts used. I tried to exclude “regular iD editing” from that second revert, but unfortunately missed some (see changeset discussion for details) - sorry about that.
Overall the scope was much more limited and much less damaging than Facebook’s initial exploits 6 or 7 years ago, but it’s certainly not yet “the finished article” (some of the comments in this related topic are also relevant).
One thing that OSM isn’t good at is storing things that are “vaguely there or thereabouts”. For example, someone fighting a fire might want to know where there is a swimming pool full of water, but not be bothered what shape it is. One part of the culture of OSM is that you verify that something’s OK is by making sure that the geometric shape matches reality, so that it won’t look silly in a renderer. As noted in the AI building thread, detecting that there is a building is easy; the time-consuming part is accurately drawing it, and it’s often actually quicker to draw a building from scratch than try and rescue something that is a not-very-good-attempt.
No change there, then 
More seriously, the comments from names that I recognise from OSM seem designed to be helpful (Stereo’s initial comment was very direct, but in a necessary “please let’s not make this situation any worse” kind of way).
With regard to the swimming pools, what possibility is there for you to take into account the different imagery offsets in any particular area? A human can easily compare available imagery (and other) sources, and can take account of imagery offsets. One problem I’ve personally see a lot of (like when Amazon did it a few years ago) was “pick one imagery source in a region, not noticing a significant offset”. I can still tell unmodified Amazon service roads locally because (a) they’re offset from reality and (b) they might technically be a patch of concrete, but in a place that other mappers may not add them.
More generally, I’m sure that there are many potential uses for this sort of thing beyond the basic “detect feature X in imagery” that I remember learning in the 1980s, taught be people who’d been doing it for a dozen or so years than. An example might be “how likely do I think this changeset is to contain accurate data, and how do I know?”. Anyone with a reasonable familiarity with OSM can look at the OSM history feed and think “that changeset needs checking” but often the cues that lead to that aren’t easy to write down.
Edit: added “from OSM” above to make meaning clearer.