This area is not a swamp.

See the LPI Base Map.

Please delete your entry.

My entry was for trees as a land cover using the tag natural=wood. It says nothing about the land use. Land use does not conflict with land cover so landuse=residential can co exist with natural=wood.

51195671 ? A building in Russia as a way.

Arr .. got it I think.

Note natural=wood is not a landuse, but a land cover. landuse=forest usually has trees but not after some harvesting, I do like to keep natural=wood off forestry area for that reason.

Corrected, and added more deatil to tree area. Thanks.

Not damage. While these things may be visible, they may not define the park boundaries. Where OSM has the legal boundaries they should be considered.

Sidewalks can be part of landuse=highway, not part of the park.

Fences have not been mapped, they may not be the park boundaries. Some place their fences well inside boundaries in order to avoid surveying fees. The council may put a fence between the road and foot path to increase safety and stop people parking within the park. So a fence cannot be taken as the parks actual boundary.

The 'stream' may not be part of the park, but an easement through properties.

A local with more knowledge might extend the park at the rear of Nos 5, 7 and 9 Cobargo Bermagui Rd .. but that requires knowledge neither of us have.

No overlap found.
Can you specify any nodes?

Corrected.
Also remove swamp. Left note with original mapper some time ago and had no response. The LPI base map does not show swamp. Probably an area subjected to flooding.

Missed the National Park being tagged with natural=wood. Removed tag.

I would suggest the residential area should be reduced. I am not the author of this area.

A cemetery can have trees .. and still be a cemetery.

One is land use, the other land cover.

If you care to look at the imagery .. you can see trees.

If you care to look at the LPI Base Map you can see the area zoned for cemetery.

What requires correction?

The above is for relation/10591122. I imaging similar comments may be made for the other relations.

Imagery shows land cover not land use. Sometimes the land use can be estimated from the land cover and local knowledge. In this case the land cover is mixed. Even where it is not mixed I cannot tell what the land is used for.
I would leave it blank for landuse, the LPI Base Map detail the property extent and most of it is tree covered. As for land cover ... good luck determining if the 'trees' are trees or shrubs or heath...

I would suggest it is you who wants to discuss these areas, so you should initiate the discussions.

Note: When I cannot determine what something is .. I do not enter it in OSM, I leave it blank rather than 'colour it in' with something that may not be correct.

There are many much larger areas on the map that are blank. Your local area may be fully mapped, congratulations! However other parts of the world do not have the local mappers to fully map these area, we do the best we can but cannot perform miracles. I would rather be spending my time mapping many 10's of square kilometers of trees than arguing with you about less than 1 square kilometer of area. But you would then use that to map other areas .. with what you think might be there base on imagery alone with no local knowledge.

I would hope an organizer would have more knowledge.
Use a local sand box.
Or add real data, there is enough of that missing to keep most busy. Some of the homesteads have names - see the LPI Base Map.

Error.

A multipolygon must form a closed area using the members it has.

These 2 relations could be combined into one relation, they would then form a closed area. However - the connection between the two does not look to have parking .. so that area could be excluded. In any case .. the relations need fixing.

You do NOT load tests to OSM!

When does an area of trees, shrubs and grass become tagged in OSM as trees? When the majority of the area is tree covered? I put it to you that the same applied to scrub. If the area is mostly low growing plants than tagging it as scrub is not correct, heath or grassland could be better.
However, what evidence do you have that the area is one thing rather than another??? I don't think the imagery is not good enough to determine if it is grassland or heath. But I certainly don't think that the area could be called scrub.

If we cannot reach agreement then I would suggest a wider audience be consulted. That audience should be Australian as the area is in Australia and they should have better local knowledge.

Hi,
Suburban boundary data cannot come from imagery. What is the source of this information?

The name of the lake cannot come from imagery. What is the source of this information?

It should not be tagged as scrub if it is not scrub. Note that the page for shrub goes on to say "This tag should not be used for:
areas dominated by low growing dwarf scrubs - use natural=heath instead."

I removed tagging of an area that is not what was tagged. I will not tag an area with something I have doubts about what is there. I don't think the imagery is good enough to determine what is there. I have traveled through this area yet I am not certain of what is there. Can you have more certainty about what is there? You seem convinced it is 'scrub'. I doubt that very much.

The white areas are not scrub - not tall enough. They could be 'heath' or 'grass'. Take a look at the imagery. Note there will always be blank areas on the map. There is a lot to do and those areas are simply too small to bother with! There are hundreds if not thousands of square kilometers to map .. all with lots of white area.