Hi please don't alter the Cotswolds AONB boundary relation. The lay out is from the official source & geometrically correct

Hi
All railway=stations are mapped. Please don't add duplicates. This is a building=train_station.

There was no way anyone could have ascertained your edits were incomplete.
My contributions are designed to improve the quality of the OSM database. I believe they've done so.
My validation checks centring around the railway=station tag ensure the official, correct number is maintained. I will continue to do that, no matter who added erroneous entities.

Apologies Ted. It's me who incorrectly replied. I'm an idiot.

I've absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Have you replied to the correct changeset?

You gave no indication it was WiP, so that's an invalid argument.
Alignment of the tracks should done from imagery. Platforms as polygons are more accurate & detailed. It's single ways which should be deleted, which I did.
Your railway=station polygons duplicated the 3495 railways stations mapped as nodes.
Railway buildings, ie public accessible train stations should be mapped as building=train_station.
A tunnel under an embankment does not constitute a train station.
building=train_station
Updating entities to improve the quality of the OSM database in not "very poor etiquette".
Instead of just commenting I spent a large portion of my OSM time correcting your errors. You may thank me.
You added spurious railway=stations & platforms which reduced clarity & usability of the data.
railway=station
Note: "There should be only one railway=station element for each station"

Hi
There can't be bridge & tunnels at the same location.
platforms mapped as polygons & linear are duplicates.
All main railway stations are mapped as nodes. Your polygon duplicates.
I've amended to suit.

Hi
To check, is this shop, where you added Martins Local, closed already?

https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/pair-open-new-shop-bath-4642689

Hi
All railway=stations are mapped. Please don't add duplicates. This is a building=train_station.

way/946403379

Hi
Could you please take a breather from your frantic editing.
You appear to be misinterpreting the access tag, amongst making other errors.
Your edits will need to be reviewed & maybe reversed.

If you're not "prepared to undertake" amendments to improve the quality of the OSM database then you shouldn't employ changes which make it worse.
No one has to "consult" you. You don't own this area.

Hi
I've reverted your chainset & prefixed relevant tags with 'disused:' instead.
I find it's best to reuse existing entities to maintain their history listing.
I've added a landuse=construction area, but guessed at its outline. If you have more detailed knowledge could you please amend.

Hi
way/894620368

Do you know how long this section of road is due to be closed?

If you're so concerned about it, why didn't you create a MP relation?

Hi
You've no joined the park ways correctly meaning it doesn't render.

Hi
Why have you split the park, pitch & wood into MP relations, yet adding no other relations to the ways? Doing so adds no value to the data.
Please don't used amenity_1. If it's a cricket pavilion, add kindergarten as a node.

I've amended it to be more accurate.

Hi
All main railway=stations are tagged as nodes. This is a duplication
way/942378018#map=18/51.51656/-0.26745
Converted to building=train_station

Thanks for replying.
Please treat all iD validation warnings with an air of caution. Many are dubious in accuracy. All warnings are ignorable.

In your example you've mapped it accurately AFAIC. iD & many routers have a problem navigating over polygon areas

Other poor warnings is adding public_transport tags to railway stations & platforms that aren't public transport such as tourist heritage lines.

way/942150934#map=19/51.38470/-2.37823

Are you /really/ sure?
Bearing in mind the path is blocked at Windsor & Destructor bridges & the height difference is this:
https://snipboard.io/dvjlRq.jpg