I'm intrigued. Why is it "invalid"?

Hi Marabu_Too

Turn restrictions should added as a relation:

osm.wiki/Relation:restriction

You're, once again deleting valid entities. If the tagging doesn't meet your required standard, update them instead of removing,

To check, is this a genuine synagogue? It's located in a residential house & appears to be named after you.

Hi Leo
Welcome to OSM.
Did you know there's a tool in the editor to 'rectangularize' the buildings?
Hover over the building, right click, select 'square'

I'm intrigued what is/are "Array positions - Bats".

Tags need to be added to the way if is to make sense.

Nice Update.

As it's a place where people stay/sleep on multiple nights I'll add landuse=residential.

I've not been through that development. Is all the rest commercial?

Hi Chris
Is the the correct location? Looks very close to Goosefoot.

Hi Morzo Welcome to OSM.
Are you trying to map a building? Try building=*

Hi
Try using the ESRI background images in iD.The paths are shown

Hi
Could I ask you to take a look at your edits? There appears to be a few things amiss:
Platform 2 is very thin
Buildings upon buildings
Short stay car & a building
a platform tagged on a node
Buildings & platforms split into unnecessary multi-polygons
Buildings & platforms with extraneous ways
Ways as platforms which should be footways to the steps.

True, just like there's a gate to the Western side. Last time I went through the Bathwick Hill gate it was unlocked & no 'private' signs. To the rear of the houses there are clearly defined property wall boundaries: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DMDIioFX0AEBtNW.jpg

FYI National Trust map (zoom in)
http://tinyurl.com/y8ub78sj

This is a relocated pharmacy. The FHRS was for it's previous location.
I'm in discussion with BANES about the inaccuracy of their database.

Leave it as it was.
As it didn't have PROW designation tags it was making no claims that it was.'
'Private' indicates it's not publicly accessible.

Hi
How do you know it's private?
NT promote it on their Skyline walk:
http://tinyurl.com/ybgms6p3

This is a video approaching the wood from the field below. Hardly private looking.
https://youtu.be/kO_ce340QMA?t=3m17s

Neat. A couple of other points:
If cyclists are allowed to ride on the pavement up to the crossing, I would draw the cycle lane parallel to Whitehall road & then join it to the crossing.

If the cyclist can ride across the crossing (is there a bike symbol in the push-button display?) then I'd upgrade to a toucan instead of puffin crossing

Hi again Bob
Could you explain your reason for the turn restriction, Are you sure a bike can't turn right into Bragg's Lane?
http://tinyurl.com/y7sjerwg

Given it's location I'm surprised the sign is orientated in that direction. Could it have been swivelled around?

From the information given If I were mapping it I'd tag is as:
highway=cycleway
bicycle=designated
foot=designated
segregated=no
surface=asphalt (cycle routers use surface to determine easy/medium/hard quality of ride)

I'd add a barrier=bollard node at the bollard location.

highway=path usage is being discourage. (The 'standard' map renders them the same as 'footways') It's usage was confused from the start & has got even murkier since. Use footway/cycleway etc & subtags to access rights/conditions etc

'Paved' is a cover all tag to metalled roads, use more specific like asphalt, paving_stones etc where possible.

Could you please give more descriptive, helpful comments than "aabbcccdd"

Thanks