For overland line road, not sure its quite right marked as driveway as far as it is. Can you double check?

Clare is correct

It was a weird gift shop, I've removed it for now though.

Its also wrong past the aviation museum. The fence depicts where the cyclepath is separated from the railway line. You've added duplicate rail in.
I think this changeset should be reverted.

This changeset is wrong near the railway museum. I surveyed on opening day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Dock_railway_station#/media/File:Port_Dock_railway_station,_24_August_2024_(day_before_opening).jpg

Only one crossing.
The old line does not come up past the public toilets
The platform does not extend past the toilets.

https://github.com/organicmaps/organicmaps/issues/9049

Marco Polo was clearly named as Marco Polo foods; you have arbitrarly merged it with the clothing company.

Oh, nice work with the farmland!

I think disconnecting it has (mildly) improved it, but we've gone from a more accurate driveway + connection to track to this.
Will think about reverting, but haven't been by that area in a while + mapillary is dated, so would be better served by resurvey

This isn't right.

See
https://sappa.plan.sa.gov.au/

And survey on the ground.
Top half is a track. It may technically be Churchett Road.
Bottom half is an unmade road reserve which last time I surveyed was marked as "private".
The last time I emailed the councils who control this, neither gave any clear answer as it's right on the border of two LGAs.
Unless you've surveyed the bottom area; or it's changed from an authoritive source, I'd suggest reverting this.

With way/1224030782 the road base is a bit more visible on esri

Nice work :)

As a tip, consider selecting the address node and the house you draw while holding shift, then using the "C" button to combine them.

Works well for single dwellings with one address, though apartment blocks or duplexes might be worth skipping

Is it safe to assume the "Subway" here is the fast food chain, not a building of a particular type?

What's the source of this name?

This one is a bit tricky, I think. Bing shows significantly more flooding than is mapped/ESRI does, but I can't tell if that's just updated imagery at the same time the big glut of water flowed through. Haven't been through the area in > 12 months though :S

It's been all of summer.
Not once did anything like what you mapped get marked out on the ground.

I'm removing this fantasy edit. I suggest you refrain from similar mapping - either survey it, use imagery, or put it in as a single point.

I'm removing way/1042811149

Typo in a few of these - cycleway:left=lane`

Visible via https://www.keepright.at/report_map.php?schema=50&error=165672238

Might be a street complete bug?

way/135871916 intersects with a building - this doesn't seem to reflect bing imagery.

With areas like way/109524629 I feel it's too large of an area to tag as an individual meadow. As there are multiple farmyard areas for example; it seems like this should be more closely aligned to obvious land parcels.