HI,
The Federal Government through the Collaborative Australian Protected Areas Database (CAPAD) sets the boundary for this Reserve to exclude the tree are you claim as part of the Reserve. What evidence do you have that suggest the government has it wrong???

The way/123641736 entered here with the tags naturel=wood (and it is not all wood) and the name 'The Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve' I have removed as it
1) is not all trees
2) breaks the boundary relation for 'The Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve' relation by including members with the role 'outer' within a member with the role 'outer'.
3) Duplicates the name ''The Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve'.

Hi,
There should be no need to edit 'Pines Flora & Fauna Reserve' as that comes from government data. Assumes that no one has altered it from when it was first entered. Try to leave these government entered data alone.

I have tried to detail the trees in this area using bing. As it is a reserve the trees would not be used for produce thus not a 'landuse=forest'. When looking a 'green' area does not always mean 'trees' - could be scrub, heath etc.

Part reverted in Australia, mapped area is of one farm.

Hi,

I have added data in this area directly from the Geographical Names Board of New South Wales...

This removes the name from the peak you have named 'South Rams Head' which has no name on the DCS Topo map nor on the DCS Base Map nor according to the NSW GNB.

For the official South Rams Head peak see node/11439426463 . It may not be high but it is south and officially recognized.

From osm.wiki/Proposal:Farmyard
Landuse=farmyard: Area of land with farm buildings (farmstead, sheeds, stables) / barnyard

Landuse=residential: An area of land having predominantly residential buildings such as houses or apartment buildings.

Hi,
I find it better to map the fields more individually. The fields don't conform to north to south nor east west lines.
The relation/16607085 should include all the water ways as inners. Some of the landuse=farmyard are actually alnduse=residential.

Ok, I've made the changes to the 686 route. It is about the only thing they can do. I have moved the bus stop over to the car park too

Moving the roundabout in the relations 3449530 and 3449531 bus route 909 end of the relation breaks the PTv2 rules - ways must be in sequential order.

I have repair these.

Hi,
What does the 682 bus do? Do a circuit around the car park?

No response ... deleted.

There are a number of these that need fixing ... See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=150.14079&lat=-36.22283&zoom=15&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

Relation fairway 14412992 deleted.

When you change a relation so that it has no outer members that means it does not form any function, delete them. If you do not mean to make them nonfuctional then you need to work on them...

Once again I have deleted this relation...

Those 'warnings' such as 'mismatched_geometry:unclosed_multipolygon_part' should be fixed.
See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=150.92213&lat=-33.87505&zoom=16&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

In this case there is no need fro a relation, the two ways can simply be tagged as landuse=residential and the third way/1229872355 simply deleted as it serves no purpose.

In general roundabout do not have a name, and they are tagged 'junction=roundabout'. See junction=roundabout

I have fixed this one.

relation/14418120 fairway deleted as it now has only one member with the role inner. Fairway gone. The 'green is now part of the fairway...

Hi,
The DCS Base map suggest that Horseshoe Rd and others are not private and not tracks. Horseshoe Rd goes to a number of properties and is probably council controlled.

Hi
relation/16782872 is not closed.

Why not use the DCS Base Map as a source for this? I would think that is far better than imagery alone to determine these features.

relation/16786435 is in error.

See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=153.56291&lat=-28.87185&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

All one building? Then there is no need to separate it? The use one simple way.

A building with parts? The use building:part. Look up how to use that on the OSM wiki.

Bus route relation/8552384 has been restore to a past version - it contains the complete route and missing details - ref, name to...

This has removed the route number and other details .... reverted.