All the public_transport=platform makes no sense in Jersey. They're mere bus stops. The only place that there are platforms is at the bus station (or possibly a major terminus).

Possible retagging:
male=only

Use (deleted) PoI node to mark entrance.

Re way/1040176071 (toilets)

Corrected by changeset/118520600

Partial correction of changeset/118464302 .

Apparently, way/1040176069 is also sharing a node with multiple highways (I very much doubt that the area extends to the centre-line of the road).

Re way/1040176069

Corrected by changeset/118519043

FixMe: unjoin node/12625131 (shared with multiple highways).

Partially correction of changeset/118464302

What makes for osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Much smaller changeset areas, please: osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Much smaller changeset areas, please: osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Much smaller changeset areas, please: osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Partial correction of changeset/118442456

Partially corrected (hospital emergency department entrance) with changeset/118491636

“Source: Local knowledge”

Then please ensure that the appropriate tag is populated in your changesets.

Part of the point of the metadata is to help other mappers.

Changes must also be from acceptable sources, and verifiable.

“I have seen a couple of your comments but they come through as several emails.”

That's down to how you have your account configured. e-postcards are essentially just notifications.
You can see a list of comments on your changesets at (for example) http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=10106828

“Are you an OSM moderator or just an enthusiast”

Relevance?
I'm not interested in ad-hominems, especially in flawed (false-dichotomy) questions.

Review is an essential part of OSM. Changes are to be verifiable (and of quality). No need to make it personal.
Thus, in a sense, everyone's a ‘moderator’ (though, this isn't a forum, so there are no moderators on OSM).

Engaging with the community it also a requirement.

“you are coming across as quite authoritarian and rude rather than helpful.”

I'm sorry that you feel that way and choose to interpret my on-topic comments in that light.

Facts trump feels, though.

Your choice of descriptors is most revealing, besides insulting.

Ignoring the likes of questions (which is the first response to questionable changes) isn't constructive, coöperative, helpful, or respectful.

Work lacking quality & care is certainly not constructive.

Am I to take it, if you're unwilling to engage, that you would rather I simply revert dubious sets, instead of giving the courtesy of benefit-of-the-doubt (etc.)?

If you object to my no-nonsense delivery, and concern for quality, then you'll definitely not like the bluntness of several members of the Data Working Group (who have even less tolerance for dubious changes; often mass-reverting, and imposing sanctions (e.g. blocking offending accounts from editing (usually temporarily) especially for persistence and/or not responding). I can't blame them; the integrity of the map matters, and they (as unpaid volunteers) don't have all day to tip-toe around every user.

I suggest that you check your assumptions, instead of flinging accusations of character. Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I get along just fine with most others.

You'll also find that in OSM (like any other technical project), the most talented, experienced, and involved, tend to have a similar no-BS mindset, and care about quality & facts over fuzzy feels.
In such cultures, out of necessity, it's common to freely criticise *work* as (very) distinct from criticising the author. If you choose to take it personally, then that's on you.
If you can't handle that reality, then such projects aren't for you. You're not gonna find many who will apologise for it. For good reason, too: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4196 .

Ultimately; everyone's different, you don't have to like me, but that's not an excuse to ignore valid questions, points, review, etc.

“I’d appreciate if you were constructive rather than sarcastic”

Another false-dichotomy; one can be both. Though, I wasn't being sarcastic, and was being constructive (hence asking, explaining, pointing to relevant documentation, standards, guidelines, conventions, and otherwise reviewing your changesets when there are clear known-problems).
You choosing to ignore that isn't my responsibility. If, instead, you had chosen to engage (on the topics at hand), instead of being dismissive, then perhaps you would elicit a different response which is more to your liking.

I'm sorry that you interpret my phrasing as sarcastic (though, textual channels aren't the clearest, for such things), or otherwise don't like what you perceive to be my delivery / style / ‘tone’, and focus on that instead of the substance of my words and address the points raised.

I wish (and would greatly appreciate, and be most receptive, if) you would address my (other) questions, points, and willingly correct the identified errors. It would be basic courtesy & civility.

I wish you'd be more concerned with facts & quality, and have due care for the work of others. As the island's lone surveyor (something sorely needed), when surveying takes rather longer than armchair editing, to have diligent work disregarded (or discarded) does make me wonder if it's worth bothering. But, that's probably why Jersey hasn't received much attention (other than from drive-by mappers) in OSM.

“for that reason have been listening to your feedback but choosing to directly converse with you as little as possible.”

I could say much about this, but it would be a distraction from what's important.

Disliking the message, or messenger, doesn't change the facts or relevant points.

Being intolerant, while judging (if not projecting upon) others, doesn't sit well.

OSM isn't fun & games. Quality matters. If you're not interested in that, then it's disappointing.

Re way/1040176071 (toilets)

building=toilets

unisex=* is ambiguous (see the wiki). Particularly since the men's & women's is separate, then male=yes & female=yes (or, possibly (fe)male=designated though I'd want to check taginfo first) would've been clearer.

Assuming that it hosts only toilets, then reusing node/1783467293 may have been sensible in this case. But, better safe than sorry 😉, in which case simply tagging the outline as building=toilets, while leaving the PoI node in place, would be entirely valid.

Often (in my experience, surveying), toilet buildings also host man_made=pumping_station , in which case it's misleading to tag the entire building as amenity=toilets (and possibly building=toilets, as well (instead, just the unassuming building=yes)).

I'll add this to my list of surveying targets, to check what's actually there. Though, it may be a while; lots of other things to survey, first.

Re source

Multiple values should be separated by a semi-colon.

GET https://m.geodruid.com/intl/en/place/787688-greve-de-lecq-barracks-museum-st-mary-les-iles-anglo-normandes HTTP/1.1
Yields; HTTP 502 Bad Gateway

Source?! 🤦‍♂️

Re way/1040176069

man_made=beehive makes clear that only nodes should have this tag (as in, individual hives).
The same documentation also points to landuse=apiary for marking the area containing several hives (which seems to be what you actually wanted).

Tagging conventions exist for good reasons (they have to make sense to software). Documentation is your friend; please RTFM.