I think the focus should be on whether the auto-generated changeset comment is good/useful for other mappers, and not about whether the user had the technical capability to change it manually. For example, if exactly the same changeset comment were to be:
- filled in by default (e.g. by OsmAnd or MapRoulette or Tasking Manager) and the user accepts that suggested comment without modifying it
or - filled in by default (e.g. by StreetComplete or Every Door) and user is technically unable to change it
does that mean the latter case is just fine, but former is bad and OSM would be better without such users (as seems to be implied by comment here)? IMHO, it should not be so – either the changeset comment is good (enough), and it doesn’t matter which editor pre-filled it; or the changeset comment is bad (and again it doesn’t matter which editor pre-filled it).
“if you are against X then you must also be against Y and HERE’S MY ARGUMENT WHY BEING AGAINST Y IS BAD”
But the issue is that both X and Y has a same Z result; and the premise seems to be that “Z is considered bad”. How can it be decoupled? If we condemn “Z” (e.g. “'#added 10 shops' is bad changeset comment and must not be allowed”), we condemn both “X” (e.g. OsmAnd) and “Y” (e.g. StreetComplete).
It surely must be totally unacceptable that we treat same changeset comment as violation to be harshly punished in one case, but completely ignore it in other case? Such preferential treatment should not be acceptable IMHO, or do you disagree?