The tags were indeed copied as-is from the relation. Please go ahead and fix the tagging.

Various types of broken polygons, see:

http://area.jochentopf.com/

Issues include wrong role for multipolygon members, touching outer rings, duplicate section in polygon, self-intersections, etc.

For these relations it was mostly wrong roles, specifically inner members that were outside the relation.

Don't create new (old-style) relations for the new wetland members, add the wetlands as inner members to the existing relation:

relation/9512149

See the relevant documentation:

* osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon
* https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Help/Action/CreateMultipolygon
* https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Help/Action/UpdateMultipolygon

Your relations have no tags, nor do most of their outer ways.

Looks like your import is broken.

As you can see in the history of the relation, the landuse tag was removed leaving the multipolygon without tags describing the feature.

Those look like disconnected ways resulting from the Replace geometry action.

Because those ways were not modified when the boundary way was replaced, the validator doesn't check them.

I don't consider these nodes a problem as they belong to different ways and should not be nodes shared between those ways. In my JOSM layer they aren't exact duplicates, their high precision coordinates are different.

If those nodes do bother you, see my previous comment.

I don't find any issues in the datasets I use (which are limited to the administrative boundaries).

Other features should not be connected the boundaries, so I advise you to move the other features away from the boundaries instead of merging duplicate nodes.

Please do not "correct" administrative borders in and of The Netherlands. We use authoritative datasets to maintain those borders.

Please do not "correct" administrative borders in and of The Netherlands. We use authoritative datasets to maintain those borders.

The old-style multipolygon dataset is part of the area fixing effort:

http://area.jochentopf.com/

While the task is marked as done, new old-style multipolygons are still created on a daily basis, and I still fix those.

As I'm fixing many issues, I'm not going to spend time digging for the reason an old-style multipolygon exists. If the fix is not obvious, I mark the relation as needing proper tags for a local mapper to fix, and move on to the next.

There are many more old-style multipolygons in the dataset I process each day, I cannot be bothered to use distrinct changeset comments for each.

Adding the fixme tag ensures that the relation doesn't show up in the old-style dataset, and that it shows up in other QA tools.

The old-style multipolygon (with only type=multipolygon tag) with the two members on the left (one outer and one inner) was removed, the correctly tagged multipolygon was updated to also include the inner from the other multipolygon, because it also includes its outer.

When I'm cleaning up QA issues, I'm not in mapping-mode, and won't spend time mapping new features.

Unused relations clutter the database, and add noise to an area where mappers should be able to focus on the features that are being used.

Leaving untagged ways not part of any relations also makes no sense.

You don't have to upload unfinished work, you can save the layer and continue later (with or without first updating all elements to sync possible work from other mappers).

There was no indication that you were working on the relation or its ways. It looked and smelled like a broken old-style multipolygon, hence was removed.

If you want work in progress retrained, you need to tag the elements appropriately.

Relations with only type=multipolygon are included in the old-style.osm.pbf dataset I use to fix these issues.

I added landuse=farmland because that what it looks like. Go and improve the tagging as your see fit.

Then please correct the tagging of the relation and its ways.

I just updated the old-style multipolygons.

That water tags came from relation/8457734 which has this way as only (outer) member.

Removing the tags should be sufficient.

Why are you shouting in this changeset instead of removing the erroneous tags?

Probably, yes.

The tags for those nodes can be deleted, they are just metadata from a GPS.