The relationship inner way touches the outer way ... that is not allowed.

Is the wood not part of the park?
Yes.. That would mean that it is not an 'inner' in the relationship and the relationship becomes a one member relationship that can be replaced by putting the tags on the outer way.

No? .. then the outer way should be changed to not include the wood. And again - would mean there is no 'inner' in the relationship and the relationship becomes a one member relationship that can be replaced by putting the tags on the outer way.

Looks like I will have to get the admin boundary from The LPI and reenter it ...

Please .. where you find a way with source LPI that has been simplified using JOSM to an error of <3m ... leave it alone .. unless you have more accurate data.

Thanks
The Admin boundary would be correct. It could be the high tide mark .. in a certain year? Would have to read the legal papers to see. I am against having the admin boundaries use physical features - leads to this kind of problem.

Where the coast line is ... could well be different from the admin boundary, low tide mark? mid tide mark?

How did you come to tag these as "landuse=residential" ?

They are buildings! Tag them building=house in these cases.

The building boundary (way in OSM terms) crosses itself ... that is an outside wall crosses over another outside wall ...
I have fixed this - try not to do it again?

It is WRONG.

The admin boundary comes the NSW Government LPI. If you want to change the coast line then change that .. not the admin boundary!!!!

Hi again.
Shared ways. Fixed into relation.
The mapping is of the building - not the way it is constructed, nor the configuration of the roof.

Any links to why you don't use a relationship to map building voids?

My reference
osm.wiki/Buildings#How_to_map
"If the building has an interior courtyard the use a Multipolygon relation to ensure that the courtyard is not rendered as part of the building."

The tag 'levels' is depreciated - apparently OSM now uses 'building:levels=*'

Hi,
way/513763820 - building part level=3 ... generates errors - "duplicate_segment" where you go to make the inner. This should be done as a relation - with inner and outer ways ...
Fixed.

Hi,
I think you are mapping the buildings? This is done from the roof outline and they are tagged building= See building=*

The name=* is not used to describe an object - that is a no no. See osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

Landuse=residential is used for larger areas - at least a block. I am lazy and use it to map a much larger area - at least several blocks.

Deleting way38931904 has made relations 3898648 and 3935888 open. Did you really mean to do that?

If the names came from Vic Maps then it has to come out.
You can use street signs to get the names .. tedious! I have spent a few days getting them. Mapillary may help ...

That site says " only for your personal use and you may not without our written permission on-sell " .. OSM gives permission to 'on sell' so their terms do not meet OSMs.
Delete all the data that you have entered from it. Sorry.
Best to use the imagery that OSM provides without further work - bing, Digital Globe. The very best data is stuff you do by personal visits .. takes time but you get real upto the moment data.
Keep mapping.

Question:
Do you have permission to use the original image?? Permission compatible with OSM requirements?

OSMinspector reports on relation/7415697 (landuse=residential) that there is duplicate segments. This needs correction. .. see http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=145.12&lat=-37.78&zoom=15

Hi
Relation: Norfolk Falls Picnic Area (7285980) will not render as it is only a name.
I have added the tag tourism=picnic_site. I have removed elements with the role 'inner' as these are actually part of the picnic site.

The LPI Base Map is available for coping into OSM, nothing wrong with that. The data maybe out of date, but I have found little wrong with it is areas I know.

PS Please keep the language civil.

Hi,
More feed back.
OSMinspector says for relation/6629267;
duplicate_segment
intersecting_segments

JOSM validator says ;
non way in multipolygon (5) [the benches I think]
role verification problem -empty role [building?]
intersection between multipolygon ways [foot paths ?]

I say;
the name for the platforms is not 'Artarmon'... the name Artarmon is then displayed twice once from this relation and again from something else.

I would delete the relation, separate the platforms up into platform 1 & 2 - and use the ref key to name them. Then use the site relation to tie them all together?

Hi,
These ways have the tag area=yes. But that does not say what it is. So ... tag what they are. You might also include additional information - surface?, bicycle?

way/506012547 has a trace out and back along the same way ... that does not make sense. It goes to Node: 4958070976. I'd remove the link to that node.

I'm confused..
The relation/6629267 for Artarmon station has

the tag platform - yep ok
level=1 ... ummm don't think so.
Includes a way as outer .. and that looks to me to be the platform.

And then includes the roof .. which goes outside the outer (this is an error) AND the roof is at level=1 - the same as the platform.

Needs more work.
.
I would have the platform with the building as an inner .. but not have the roof in it. Good Luck.

HI,
In doing this the relation/2425110 was broken. The following relations also look to be in trouble
5295065)
2425468)
there maybe others...

Hi,
I've been working on this treed area.
The Barrington Top NP is not all trees .. nor do the trees stop at its boundaries.
I have added a new relationship 7387469 for this treed area. I will work on it - expand and add holes.

Hi,
Is the way/494067322 you added part of the relation/1530651 - Greenfields Wetlands... or is it simply an adjoining wetland?
As both now carry the same name it is confusing. If it is part of Greenfields Wetlands then way/494067322 should simply be addedto the relation/1530651 (removing the tags from the way). If it is not part of Greenfields Wetlands then the name should be removed from the way/494067322. Does that make sense?