Die gelöschten Kleingartenanlagen:
relation/4275175/history
relation/11991408/history
Den gelöschten Acker;
relation/4277475/history

Ist dir bewusst, was Du mit deinen "Korrekturen" bewirkt hast? Zum Beipiel :
relation/4275175
relation/4275175
relation/4275173

Before you continue please consider rules for valid mulipolygons:
No menber ways of multipolygons sharing nodes.
No iintersecting member ways.
Apply poperty tags of the multipolygon object to the the multipolygon only, not to any of the member ways.
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-123.66375&lat=49.51072&zoom=13&opacity=0.95
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-123.83404&lat=49.60114&zoom=13&opacity=0.95
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-120.80751&lat=49.35987&zoom=10&opacity=0.95

Ensprechen die ganzen village_green-Flächen tatsächlich den Kriterien gemäß Wiki?
osm.wiki/DE:Tag:landuse%3Dvillage_green

Bitte vor Eintrag eines keys über die korrekte Verwendung informieren: osm.wiki/DE:Key:wikimedia_commons.

Sind das alles öffentliche Parkplatze sodass ich mich darauf verlassen kann, dass ich als Außenstehender dofr einfach parken darf?

Rechtwinklige Azsruchtung rückgängig gemacht:changeset/93651046

Please be careful deleting ways, they might be members of relations!
Ways
way/855399681
way/667694530
way/667694529
way/667694526
were members of boundary relations
relation/9285594#map=13/43.7551/-79.4793
relation/9285595#map=14/43.7786/-79.4097
relation/9285592
relation/9285591
which now are broken.

Was hat Änderung von http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/ZsW in relation/4036226#map=11/50.2048/7.6661 mit der Verbesserung von tags zu tun?
Warum die neue Relation relation/11801371 ?
Warum die Änderung von http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Zt0 in relation/1705924#map=12/50.4769/7.4300 ?

What's about way way/424375860 ? It is member of the Alps relation, but not of any other mountain area.
And again my recommedation of JOSM for editing relations: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=13.89840&lat=45.75046&zoom=11&opacity=1.00&overlays=duplicate_node,single_node_in_way,ring_not_closed,ways

There was no broken relation after my changeset/93014725. After this changset you left behind two broken relations. Maybe you should use JOSM not only for reverts.

What is the reason for the revert? What is the effective source of your changes?

Pleas edit boundaries more carefully.
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-120.81600&lat=50.11711&zoom=16&opacity=1.00&overlays=duplicate_node,single_node_in_way,ring_not_closed,touching_rings,role_should_be_inner,role_should_be_outer,inner_with_same_tags,ways

This was the situation before my edit: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/YQg .Way #275138001 was removed from the multipolygon probably by concatenating to a non.member way (see history: http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=3661442). Therefore the outline of the area was no more closed.
What I did was to remove the highway from the relation, because a physical object is not a appropriate representation for a virtual line like an area outline. Then I completed the remaining member way to a closed ring and transfered the area tags from the multipolygon to the way. Then I deleted the multipolygon because for an area consisting of only one outer ring no relation is needed.

Relation of type=waterway is for a linear object, not a area object. "bay" is not a valid value for key=waterway.

Please apply correct and complete member roles to boundary relations: osm.wiki/Relation:boundary
(http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-123.04616&lat=49.25648&zoom=12&opacity=1.009

Please do not fill up OpenStreetMap with defective boundary data: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-64.37001&lat=45.01974&zoom=11&opacity=1.00&overlays=duplicate_node,single_node_in_way,duplicate_segment,way_in_multiple_rings,intersection,intersecting_segments,ring_not_closed,role_should_be_inner,role_should_be_outer,inner_with_same_tags,old_style_multipolygons,same_tags_on_outer_ring,ways
An OpenStreetMap mp connot be a source of OpenStreetMap data!

Qualitätssicherung, bei der massive neue Fehler (siehe Link) verursacht werden (trutz der Validierungsmöglichkeit von JOSM), hat ihren Sinn verlioren.

Worin besteht hier die Qualitätssicherung: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=12.04160&lat=48.93955&zoom=14&opacity=1.00 ?

Ist dieser Weg tatsächlich für Fahrräder verboten? Er ist doch Bestanddteil eines Radwegenetzes.
way/35285822.