Nice sheet. Always interesting to see how people arrange orchestral pieces for solo piano.
Thanks! Yea, there's a lot to consider and I'm sure that two arrangements of equal quality would be different in terms of what parts are there and how it's notated
- The tie on the lower E overlaps the notes in measure 23. I'd remove it altogether since you re-strike that E in the measure (meaning you can't hold it that long anyway).
Bar 23: As another option, if you really want to keep the tie, you can use the tie tool to bend it into shape to avoid collisions.
I ended up getting rid of the bottom E note altogether in m23/24
- Seems like an awkward place to put the eighth rest in measure 26...
For some reason I thought that would be better than putting it above the staff. It has been switched
- Layer work in 47+, LH: Make sure to keep stem direction and rest positioning consistent for the top and bottom layer.
I changed it to where the 2nd layer is upwards and vice versa (aside from the half note in m50
- The .mus file has some problems with doubled accidentals in 49-50: [see here]. (Not just the two flats on the same note, E flats are reiterated for both layers.)
Fixed
Yay. A zelda arrangement!
Yay. Feedback!
- Might I recommend this extra note for M. 2-5? I definitely here a cello/bass/brass instrument an octave higher than the low one.
Added
- In M. 6 (and others like it) the notes are A & E.
I'm not hearing an E at all (even if it is actual an E, it sounds like it's higher than the A). Also, unless you made a mistake with the measure number (or implied it with "and others like it"), it sounds similar to m5. Maybe someone else can chime in. About m9+others, did you have anything against that as well?
Also, the way you have the hand crossings set up is a little confusing. Might I recommend these 2 options.
1.
Pro: Not that big of a hand jump.
Con: If you use this method throughout the piece, the bass may start to clash with the notes in the second layer.
2.
Pro: Having it an octave higher like this makes it much cleaner and looks pretty pro.
Con: A bigger hand jump.
I'd recommend 2 since it's easier to read and would clash with other layers/notes less throughout the piece, but that second layer/voice will need to be switched between the hands quite a few times.
That's all I have for now. There may be more, but I'll see what you do with this above feedback first 
A few comments/questions:
- Notating it either way would almost be the same as if I got rid of the LH and bracket markings. The only difference I can tell is that there would just be more ledger lines. Since I don't agree with the lower E and that was probably part of the reason why you notated it entirely in the bass clef, I'm scratching out option 1. I also don't think it's necessary to raise it up an octave
- I don't see how it would clash for the 1st option (unless you meant it's unplayable with one hand)
- About using lines, isn't that for signifying that the voice is moving between staves and not the hand itself (correct me if I'm wrong)? That's why I had the brackets in the first place.
Regardless, since you said it was slightly confusing, I decided to cross staff instead of using brackets. If the majority of people think using brackets instead of cross staffing is better (or someone else comes up with an even better solution), then I can change it
Bar 11-12 LH: Flip the stems.
Since I ended up changing the way I notated it, 11 was flipped while 12 was not