Hi,
Welcome to Open Street Map!! Your contributions are very welcome, we have too few contributors in your area.

One hint .. the outer way of a relation should not have the same tags as the relation. So a relation with the tag natural=wood should not have the other way tagged natural=wood.

Hi,
There are a number of problems with these entries...
See OSMInspector .. https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=166.66692&lat=-77.84619&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

JOSM validator reports
4 errors - ways contains segments twice
a number of warnings - 2 on missing tags *=construction without construction=*

Hi,
Two problems ..
the way/1463029879 (residential garden) crosses itself.
the way/1463029832 (residential garden) touches itself.
See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=115.99450&lat=-32.06603&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

This was discuses in the talk list.
It is thought that map users first want to see the stand identification. The area can be determined from the location.

Hi,
I've made the Bibbulmun Wellington Spur Trail (7337865) relation into a contiguous route. Best attempt to guess where it goes in some section where there were multiple options in the disjointed OSM route. Please see if there are any gross errors. Kick me if you find any.

Hi
Where the bicycles use a traffic light controlled oedestrian crossing and there is no bicycle light .. then the tagg should be bicycle=dismount. Only where there is a red/green light for a bicycle can there be bicycle=yes such as at the Epping Rd to Pembroke St lights.

HI
Why seperate roundabouts into separate segments? If it is bacuse you thing a route should only include the individual segments ... well that is not necessary ... and can work against certain routes. Routing engines accept that a roundabout as a single osm entry will probably only use some segment of the roundabout. By separating the roundabout there is data bloat and I don't think it really help the routing engines at all.

Note I have made the route contiguous.

motor_vehicle=permit implies permit is ordinarily granted ... I think you mean motor_vehicle=private?

Humm...
These carry access tags of foot=yes and no for the rest of the tagged access ... would it not be better to tag access=no and let the foot=yes remain?

Hi,
Do you check these routes meet the OSM requirements?
The relation/4513980 has the ways in the reverse order...
OSM Inspector shows quite a few of these ferry routs are incorrect...
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=pubtrans_routes&lon=151.23079&lat=-33.84752&zoom=13&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

There, rendered on default map. Some of the enclosed features may not be there any more ... sculptures relocated?

Hi
The relation type=building does not render???
I'm trying this: the outer way as a multipolygon relation - there are at lest 2 holes in it according to Esri so this is 'legal'? That should get the outer to render.. I have left the building relation alone other than setting the outline to the multipolygon relation... see how that goes?

Hi,
The warning you got on uploading this is real and would have been best fixed before upload. The multipolygon relation does not have a closed outer.

In fact this does not need to be a relation at all... a simple closed way would do the job. I would suggest you delete it and remap it as a closed way.

Relation deleted.
Bye.

This made the train route relation Alamein Line: Flinders Street => Alamein (via City Loop) (11592518) only have one member - the changeset has deleted the rest.

Not interested in it?

Shall I delete it?

HI,
relation/19777606 (post depot) has been deleted, the tags have been placed on the landuse=commercial.
A multiploygon relation outer ways cannot be inside other member outer ways ...

The 2 ways that make up relation/19785222 (scrub) .. well the simple solution is to remove the relation and place the tag on both ways... Technically not as nice as a relation with a hole in it but it will work and it is simpler.

A one member multipolygon relation is data bloat .. tags transferred to simple way and relation deleted...