There are now some 5 relatons with errors in this area...
See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=144.03058&lat=-39.85133&zoom=9&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 addition of state, postcode and suburb are all redundant information! Do not waste your time adding it. The information can be obtained by software from OSM data already loaded - admin boundaries and post code boundaries...

These are in Victoria.. the DCS stuff is NSW only.

What is the source of this information?!

HI,
This one I'll leave you to fix.

The Chinese cemetery sector is part of the cemetery - so no relation is required.

Multipolygon relation outer ways cannot share segments... see https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=148.32810&lat=-34.54313&zoom=18&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 cemetery sectors are part of the cemetery. So these are not 'inners', making the relation having only one member .. so it can be mapped as a simple closed way.

Hi,

Adding 'maxspeed' while there are maxspeed:forward and maxspeed:backward ... makes no sense

I am removing the maxspeed tag where there is this conflict.

Hi,
Try using the DCS Imagery - better resolution and better positional accuracy

Hi,
These areas are part of the Bago State Forest so they should be included. Tagging of 'State Forest' is done using 'landuse=forest'. Catch22 is that most renders use the same rendering for both natural=wood and landuse=forest.

OK.
I took Way: 13653242 and cut it in two where it crosses from one side of the river to the other.
See way/13653242
I took Way: 13653235 and cut it in two where it crosses from one side of the river to the other. See way/13653235

I then placed way/13653235 into the relation/14728907.
See relation/14728907

Note you will have to learn how to do this for yourself. I too am self taught.

Yep. Not uncommon.
I tidied what I saw - flagged on OSMInspector which usually picks up my errors.

Hi,
The relation changed does not cover that section of river.
See relation/14728907#map=15/-33.3051/115.7058

And see way/13653235#map=15/-33.2950/115.7249

If you want change the relation outer way to include sections of way/13653235.

Note The editor Id does not handle relations well, JOSM does a better job - it is a more complex editor.

Hi

Woowookarung Regional Park has

3 ways - one of them closed.
1 relation - with all the above ways.

It is appropriately mapped by the single closed way. I have removed the others as redundant.

Looks good to me.

North Coast Line and Sydney XPT route relations corrected for sequential way order....

The TOC Manual is STILL not correctly listed on the data base!

I think it is time to remove the data from OSM.

Additionally where maxspeed:backward and maxspeed:forward are the same maxspeed should be used.

No.
Multipolygon relation outer ways cannot share the same segments.

If they are 2 seperate buildings then they's usuall have 2 addresses e.g. 8a and 8b. However as they both have the same name (Duetto) I'd take them as the same building .. just with one section having a different height - see building:part for information.

I leave you to fix this.. see https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=151.24103&lat=-33.87661&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

I came arccos it in a similar manner. I still keep my eye on it to check for my errors.

Ken Done gallery restored tag as tourism=gallery ... but removed it from the building and now is a simple node.

If you had looked at the tool I referenced in the first post you would have seen it. For your information:

relation/15916710/history
1) outer way way/1177206588#map=15/-39.7715/143.8731 has the same tags as the relation

2) Way way/1177206589#map=19/-39.77392/143.87128 is tagged in the relation as an outer when if fact it is an inner...

I suggest you keep an eye on the tool I referenced in my first comment to see if you make any similar errors.

The relation was in error. The error has been repeated by you in other changesets. You will continue to make this same error until you recognise it.

Do you now want to look at the error and fix it? By fixing it you may learn how to avoid repeating it?