Hi,
Building way/1315454534 has an error - it intersects itself.
See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=151.16100&lat=-33.71926&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,
A 'football filed' should be tagged leisure=pitch, sport=rugby or soccer or australian_football ... the name tag should never be used t describe something.

Hi
relation/18029993 (construction) is technically incorrect.
See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=146.55537&lat=-38.17419&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

Looks to me like relations are not required here - no holes inf the middle of them and outer ways are not shared with anything else...

DCS has 3 entries for OSM;
Imagery - that is what you are using for building footprints, hte base map does not show them.
Topographical .. good for large things - like the big power lines as it shows the voltages .
Base Map - shows the addresses.

Note: Six Maps is commercial .. and they will protect their copyright. Use the DCS Base Map .. it should be an option in your editor .. In Josm .. under 'Imagery' select 'Map' then select 'DCS Base Map' Please try to avoid using other sources .. unless they are on the osm.wiki/Australian_Data_Sources

NO!

Use of Six Maps brakes their copyright!

Use DCS Base Map instead!

-----------------
The JOSM validator would have issued a warning on way/1311765931 - 'self crossing way' these should be fixed before upload.

Conflicts...
between tags maxspeed=x and existing maxspeed:forward=y and maxspeed:backwards=z.

Bing still shows a cricket pitch .. other imagery shows nothing.
2 years ago the change you made still had a cricket pitch here. As we are coming out of winter perhaps St Marks Anglican Community School will once again have a cricket pitch here... assuming it has not been made into something else?

The convention is layer=0 is 'ground level' .. The foot path would be ground level? So the building would be layer=1 - above ground???

How about fixing this???

layer=-1 implies these footways are below the roads they cross... Wrong.

Bridges are usually layer=1 so they go over a water way...

Hi,

Why do you have duplicated segments? This is the third one I have come accross of yours...

See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=151.02114&lat=-33.73112&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

Parking relation deleted. Parking tags on ways... KISS

Hi,
relation/17953279 (marsh) has problems ...
See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=144.99086&lat=-37.64228&zoom=17&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

The outer ways cannot share segments with inner ways ... Zoom in on the Esri imagery and it looks like the marsh area is larger. In bing it looks like a construction zone...

Routes entered by this changeset;

relation/6969948

relation/6969949

The proposal osm.wiki/Proposal:Power_routing_proposal goes into why 'route=power' is not a good idea.

No communication - yet altered back to operational 2 months ago .. while still not operational.. Poor behavior.

Quotes from OSM wiki on bay..

Bays are frequently mapped as nodes, and rarely as areas.

Large bays can be mapped as areas but the resulting multipolygon relations will often be extremely large and complex so mapping with nodes is preferable

End quotes...
Some 56,450 mapped as nodes .. some 3,563 mapped as ways (assume fjords) and some 20,377 as relations. So a little over 70% are mapped as nodes, I'd think that is fairly 'frequent'?

I note that neither of the 2 relations given as example look to render while this does render
node/3963720669

Would you care to explain whey the bay node has been deleted and moved to a relation? I note the accepted practice in OSM is to have the bay represented by a node..

1) I have not examined the changeset so cannot say what else it may have damaged.
2) The accepted practice is to have bays as nodes. The changeset remove the node and replaced it with a relation .. a relation that excludes various islands that maybe incudes in the bay...

The reversion simply restores both the borken relation and the bay back to a node.

Hi,
Have you read natural=bay?uselang=en ???