The sessions were transferred from the contour to the platform area.
If the shelter and platform is not designed as a multipolygon, the shelter is not displayed.

If you can't pinpoint "my alleged mistake", your comment is just an arrogant attack on other editors. In other words, it's trolling. Your comment is further considered insignificant and will not be accepted.
Stop attacking and slandering other editors.

Without a specific line, discussion is pointless.

Hi
I don't know exactly which is the side road, the specific line. But it's based on aerial photography, which may be outdated. Other street photography has those tracks there as well.

I'll be stopping by in a few days, so hopefully there will be somewhere relevant to park according to the OSM map :) We are going to visit the invasion beach landing l anniversary.

Hi, I'm responding with a delay, the notification of comments to the email doesn't work. You can fix it, it's not a problem. Have a nice day

Ahoj, bohužel to nemohu na ploše najít. Možná chyba nebo omyl.

Ok

Duplicita? Hlavním prvkem je ulice / ulička. Tyto cesty ale nejsou sjízdné, protože zde jsou chody "na ulici".

1) "At many airports, aeroway=taxiway is also used within apron areas, however". Unless the apron is divided into several smaller ones, but here the aprons are divided and the taxiway passes between them. In other words. If one huge and complete apron is drawn then the taxiway will pass through the cross. That's not here.
2) Taxilane / Parking_posirion , using Parking_position is universal (simpler), can be a point and a line.
Additionally, the help for Parking_positioin states "draw a line from the taxiway to the stopping point and mark Pakking_position". The description of Taxilane in the help is also a bit confusing because it also refers to the runway.

After your hit, half of the roofs and lawns will remain invisible on the map, half will be displayed. What's right? All rooftops and lawns exist. But according to your map, only some of them exist. Isn't that stupid?

Pedestrians don't walk on the grass here but around :D, hence the grass as a visible area.
Rendering is just solved by cutting out the area and inserting an object into it. This is common knowledge, and a good editor knows it, another editor doesn't understand it and wonders. That's why the "cut out" options exist.
If you object, at least don't destroy the maps.

node/1017848199 ... it is not a my work !!! go and FIRST READ HELP, it si bad point of other editor.
Please use your head, think logically before you destroy something. You're using arguments based on the wrong tags of a previous edit.

parking position of airplane is not a house number

My God, that was just an example. The objects are indeed rendered differently (probably a bug in the inerpreter). The pedestrian zone area nonsensically overlays buildings and other areas. That's why the cutout in its area. It's pointless to divide the area into several smaller areas and draw the embedded objects, when it is possible to make the embedding in the area to make them visible.
Is there actually a green area (e.g. grass) in the area? Yes there is, therefore it must be visible or not?

see help: aeroway=parking_position

aeroway=parking_position out of terminal on appron, aeroway=gate is inside building terminal or not?
aeroway=gate

Wow :o ... "These 'gates' are the plane parking positions!"... please see HELP !!!

Why are you devastating the maps? A parking space is not a taxiway for planes !!! Deliberately damaging the work of many editors.

Hi, yes, that's right. But it causes other problems. Sometimes the edge of the object is not drawn but only the fill colors, sometimes the inserted object is not separated properly, etc.
For example, ... way/1243799275 ... here the object is inserted directly, and subsequently the outline is lost.

I found only 1 time ref=PER, I deleted it.

Hi,
ref=PER ... is the label written by the previous editor, I just copied it (didn't delete it).
layer=0 ... the same thing again.
The original area of the car park was extremely large. unsuitable for subsequent partial modifications, therefore 5 smaller.

"There are at least some 16 ways with the same positions, 8 of those could be removed". ... I don't understand , what, which?