The relation only has inners...

Suggest delete the relation!

Note: state, country and suburb add information can be obtained by renders from already entered data. There is no need to include it on everything.

The relation excludes the buildings from the nursing home... Why?

One member relations are redundant.

Clark Island relation has been deleted for the above reason.

Hi,

Multipolygon relations outer ways cannot share segments.
relation/17077151 has been deleted. What were the outers for this deleted relation have been tagged as buildings as per the deleted relation.

I can find no parking area with the tag ref=PER other than the ones you created. Have they been deleted? Ther are 2 of these left..

Relation: 17066857
Edited at: 2024-01-22T19:48:15Z
In changeset: 146567294

And
Relation: 17066856
Data Set: 5965853e
Edited at: 2024-01-22T19:48:15Z
In changeset: 146567294
A 2 member relation - looks to be a poor duplicate of above relation/17066857

Example of duplicated ways:

Way: 1241751958 from changeset: 146527486 created 2024-01-21T20:44:59Z has no tags
Used as an inner in relation 17069273 changeset/146583429 (this one)

Duplicated by Way: 1241751959
Created at: 2024-01-21T20:44:59Z
In changeset: 146527486
with tag highway=pedestrian ...

From the link I gave says

"Errorneous ways
rel_id 2666822
from Sydney
to Canberra
ref 631-636
name Canberra Xplorer
route train
way_id 1242188200
node_id 1577647710
error gap"

Examining the sequence of ways in JOSM they are not is sequence between way/285071338 and Way: 144184406. There are several sequences that need changing.

This also brakes

India Pacific relation/3134294 - gap.

Northshore & Western line relation/9806974 gap

Gap between Way: 904363665 and Way: 145390717

and possibly others, the QA tool only catches so many before it moves on. There are some 20 relations in this changeset that were altered, not all of them are Public Transport version 2.

Opps - Canberra Explorer

Gaps or unordered ways on Canberra Express route -
See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=pubtrans_routes&lon=151.19704&lat=-33.89722&zoom=15&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=ptv2_routes_valid%2Cptv2_routes_invalid%2Cptv2_error_ways%2Cptv2_error_nodes%2Cptv2_routes_valid%2Cptv2_routes_invalid%2Cptv2_error_ways%2Cptv2_error_nodes

Hi
The ref=PER is the code for the airport, not individual parking areas, buildings nor anything else.

Assess = yes is the default and is layer=0 .. adding them is simply data bloat.

5 parking area relations have been deleted as duplications.

There are at least some 16 ways with the same positions, 8 of those could be removed.

HI,
Hint - to make the building corners 'square' press the letter 'Q' while the building is selected.

Hi
Note
This route was in Public Transport version 2 meaning;
ways are in order of travel - start to finish
stops are in order - start to finish.

I have done the ways, but the stops need to be done too.

Hi,
Multipolygon relation outer ways cannot share segments. relation/17039943 has been deleted - tags placed on one of the ways .. the other way looks like a garage to me and I have simply tagged that as building=yes.

Hi,
Multipolygon outer ways are not allowed to share segments. I have deleted relation/17020314 - garden school and simply places the relevant tags on the ways. That is simpler and does the job.

Sport = soccer..
Changed to building grandstand and added pitches .. as per Ersi ..

See what you think..

Hi,
I have separated the individual courts.
I have also added buildings, and then placed the club on one of the buildings together with club=sport, sport=netball.
I think that is a little better..

Ok...
40N not part of the original gazette, but the property report puts it with some of the original gazetted areas. So that is 'good', the property report/planning property report are dated from when I accessed it ... meaning it is upto date' as far as they know.

Lot 40N does not appear to be part of the gazetted area for The Pines park ..

Above .. I was wrong in attributing it to local gove.. PUZ7 = 'Public use - other public use' whatever that means (probably equivalent to 'miscellaneous' !).

HI,
The planning zones report https://production-planning-report-pdf.s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/Allot-2086-Parish-Of-Frankston-(ID216301107)-Vicplan-Planning-Property-Report.pdf suggest that some of the area is under local government control while some is 'Public park and recreation/conservation reserve' ... I think the later is the Vic Parks bit .. while the local government would be a separate thing...

????

Hi,

There are 2 'Dead Horse Gap'. One signed on the road is as close as that gets to the true gap, I think of it as a tourist sign. The other is the true gap .. as recognised by the Geographic Naming Board. I have rest the second back to where it was.

The government date is official. It includes legal easements. My experience is that the government date is reliable. Boundaries cannot be accurately obtained for imagery or casual observation.

More? Even Parks Vic who run the park and must know the boundaries so don't go messing with others property agree with the CAPAD data .. see https://www.parks.vic.gov.au/-/media/project/pv/main/parks/documents/visitor-guides-and-publications/the-pines-flora-and-fauna-reserve/the-pines-flora-and-fauna-reserve-visitor-guide.pdf?rev=799d555f1b4742e992d9eca40684ab5d

I would suggest you talk to a parks person about your impression of where the park boundaries are ..