Hi
This left behind the tag construction=cycleway. That should be removed if construction is finished?

Hi,
Would this be due the weather we have had recently? If so repairs could be expected eventually?

The Maxar imagery looks to be the most upto date. The DCS Base Map shows the legal boundaries.

Tracks made by construction work should not be mapped - they will go away with occupancy and landscaping, so they are not 'permanent'.

Unfortunately the past edits have not been good. Better to start smaller like this edit and see how you go. Maybe map the houses?

Hi
The tag building=* should only be for the building, not a collection of buildings.

Hi,
I have deleted the Chinese 'names' from this and other past changesets.
Please continue mapping .. but consider the 'names' and possibly use the description tag.

Hi
The tag building=* should only be on a building, not on an area that contains buildings.

Hi,
Welcome to OSM.
Some problems? name should be for the name only - not a description. See osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only. Additional the name should be in the local language.
Deleting way/768112873 has broken 3 relations...
For these and a few other reasons this changeset has been reverted.

Hi,
The Woowookarung Regional Park multipolygon relation/14979222 is in error. The outer way cannot share segments. See osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon#Multipolygon_created_by_only_one_polygon for one error..

Hi,
These new 'roads' don't make sense! They appear to be boundaries between properties.

You are attracting attention. Please explain these new 'roads'.

Thanks nev. It moved a fence across the taxi ways... as well as reducing the base area.

Reverted.

Reverted.
Hi,
Welcome to OSM. Unfortunately this and your next changeset broke the boundary for HMAS Albatross and so were reverted.

railway=abandoned means the rail line is still there, it does not mean razed, nor does it say anything about a platform. I do wish that railway=disused/abandoned were changed to disused:railway=rail or abandoned:railway=rail so it easier to understand what it meant.

Looking at the DCS imagery for Links Rd there is a track of the railway line crossing .. but either side of the road .. gone. Looking at the other OSM available imagery also does not show any remains.

Form the OSM wiki
abandoned:*=* Still visible but fallen into serious disrepair and which could only be put back into operation with considerable effort.

razed:*=*
Not existing any more because of active removal, for fully dismantled tracks and trackbed (overbuilt state)

----------------
Present sate? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mbt-S-fzTQ
8.25 - Christie street over built of railway. = razed.

8.57 Dundel Station - no sign of tracks. Platform could be mapped .. as ruins:railway=platform .. go ahead.
9.30? Embankment .. no longer used for transport so man_made=embankment.?
9.45 no sign of railway line near Forester Rd.

10.02 Links Rd crossing - overbuilt -= razed. I cannot see any sign of rail tracks there.

On wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ropes_Creek_railway_line#Today
"all track and overhead wiring beyond Christie St. has been removed. "

Very good. Thanks.

No interest in fixing it? I'll delete it then?

I have now summarised the tagging list discussions and entered text to explain the purpose of mapping non existent features in OSM on the wiki page osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix#Stages_of_decay

Note the words "Renders cannot rely on OSM preserving physically vanished history. "

Before this changeset JOSM validator reports a "Warning; way unclosed". Now JOSM validator says "Error: way contains segment twice, Warning: self intersecting way". OSMinspector says there is a duplicate segment in the way. See

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=151.08789&lat=-32.75460&zoom=19&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways

Hi,
The parking relation/14959084 is not correct.
There is no need to use a relation here ... nor in the past changeset/120726433 parking relation/14119374. As an example I have deleted relation/14119374 and made those parking areas as simple closed ways. Please consider doing something similar with relation/14959084.

Hi,
Way: A Friend's Place 43 (an eco friendly retreat) (1115404643) ... umm there is only a 'name' some sort of accommodation... web search ...
According to https://afriends.place/ a camp site.. I have retagged it to that.