Messilat Zion polygon area

I was reconnecting some trivial INT gaps in JOSM, and I got a validation error regarding the multipolygon relation of Messilat Zion (
I am not sure what the problem is exactly, but I think it has something to do with the relation containing both the way that defines the area of the settlement, and the node at the center (which came from GNS).
I compared it to the nearby Eshtaol, which also has a node at the center, and a way along its border. Over there there is not multipolygon relation of the two with the name properties. Should this be the preferred way to mark Messilat Zion as well (copy the properties from the relation to the border way, and remove the relation)?

What’s an “INT gap”?

I don’t get a validation error with josm, not even if I lasso-select the entire village. Can you quote the error you get?

The Eshtaol tagging is actually controversial since it violates (the ‘name’ tag occurs both on the node and on the way). The Messilat tagging also repeats the name tag (on the relation itself and on its node member), but let’s not conflate unrelated issues; let’s first resolve the validation error you get.

And “INT gap” is a gap in the relation of the Israel National Trail. Occasionally people update ways along the way, and forget to reconnect the relation to be continuous. So I just find those locations, and reconnect the ways (UPDATE: I add existing ways into the INT relation. I don’t add nodes/ways to reconnect gaps arbitrarily).

regarding the validation error - I just tried again. I downloaded the area around Messilat Zion again, and ran the JOSM validation. The exact error is “Multipolygon relation should be tagged with area tags and not the outer way (1)” and it is on the “Messilat Zion” multi-polygon relation, which contains both the landuse outer polygon, and the label node.

When I moved the “landuse=residential” tag from the outer polygon way, to the relation, the validation error disappeared. But I don’t want to commit this change without understanding if this is the right way to do it.

Thanks for clarifying.

I am not sure where the landuse tag should go. As a datapoint, agrees with that josm warning: it says that landuse tags should go on the relation rather than on the (one or more) role=outer member ways - which makes sense because the member ways needn’t be closed ways.