Bus stops added to PTv2 must have tags "public_transport=platform" and "bus=yes"... those added to bus route 290 'Epping - City' don't have these tag - thus fail PTv2.

See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=pubtrans_routes&lon=151.23855&lat=-33.76979&zoom=11&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=ptv2_routes_valid%2Cptv2_routes_invalid%2Cptv2_error_ways%2Cptv2_error_nodes%2Cptv2_routes_valid%2Cptv2_routes_invalid%2Cptv2_error_ways%2Cptv2_error_nodes

Bus route 166 (to) Frenches Forest. What I have done....

Placed the ways into the correct sequence, they run from start to finish.

Stops placed into the correct sequence - from start to finish. All stops placed at the beginning of the relation.

If you don't know how to do this .. find out. I don't used Id, I did use it once or twice when I first started with OSM, but was told that if I wanted to do complex stuff I was better off using JOSM. I have been using JOSM since then.
Please examine the relation/10624943 and see how it is organized ... both the stops (platforms) and ways ...

Moved bus stop in relation for 166 route to correct position in the relation.

In PTv2 ALL bus stops are placed before the ways. All of them. None of them go after the ways.

Existing bus stops already in OSM probably meet the PTv1 requirements. For PTv2 you have to add tags "public_transport=platform" and probably "bus=yes". The real headache is getting the dam things in sequential order.
Good luck.

A 'bus stop' is beside the road.

A bus 'stop_position' is on the road - where the bus actually stops.

For PTv2 a "bus stop" must be tagged as "public_transport=platform"

Node: Santa Maria del Monte, The Boulevarde (2877493994) changed back to "public_transport"="platform"

Out of sequence bus stops without roles in the route relation removed from the relation.

Step 1) place them in sequential order
step 2 ) add the role 'platform' in the relation.

Fix?
Broke residential land use relation/1245766644

???????????????
Are you going to repair this?

Or will you leave it like relation/2792531?

Hi,
Some of this farmland shows remnant scrub, best to exclude that from te farmland?

Hi,
OSM values, with some exceptions, are lower case , not 'MTB'. If you look on the OSM wiki there is sport=cycling and then detail is added using cycling=mtb. I have done that to this area.

Hi,
For the Newquay Promenade relation. 3 of the 'inners' added touch the outer way - that is an error. I have removed those inners. If the promenade dose not include that areas then the outer way needs to be modified - more wok but them is 'the rules'.
Let me know if I can help.

The one member residential relation is not a replacement for the residential relation that was altered to the point of making no contribution (no outer way as it has been deleted) as it does not cover the area south of Stringybark Reserve

One member relations should be removed with the tags simply moved to what was the outer way of the relation. If the one member relation has no outer way then it makes no sense.

The sign a the top is legal access=no ... While people might break the law OSM should not encourage it???

Bus stops out of sequence and without roles removed from relation.

Out of sequence bus stops without roles removed from relation/3766951. Ways have been re-sequenced.

Hi,
I think you have tried to make a hole in a tree area. What you have made is a 'self crossing way, or a 'dplicate segment'. See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=148.05925&lat=-42.14655&zoom=17&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways

To fix it - make a new way for the hole. Enter the new way into the relation with the role 'inner'. See osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon#Multipolygon_created_by_only_one_polygon

I did not say it was 'your work'.

What do you think of the 'taxilane' tag? It does distinguish between one control area and another control area...

relation/3766951 has stop in wrong order. I have removed the stop from the relation.

We map and tag in OSM. The renders draw the way they want to, they can exclude some things etc. We map and tag according to the 'rules' what the renders do is up to them ...

The 'green areas' are used by pedestrians, so they are part of the pedestrian are as are the roof area - people walk under than for shade..

If you object to way something is drawn - take it up with the renders.

See
node/10178481999
amongst others.

Thank you for moving some of the 'gates' inside the terminal buildings.

also see for more on taxiway taxilanes...
osm.wiki/Proposal:Taxilane

I have raised the 'parking_position' being used as a way on the tagging list. Lets see what the tagging experts think? I note there has been on proposal on the 'parking_possition'.

That is a rendering issue.
The example you gave looks to be correctly rendered. The 'edge' of a park does not appear to be drawn - just the 'fill' .. see way/388948281.

A 'national park' is tagged as a boundary and is drawn as a line around the outside - no fill. See relation/6110851