Hi
relation/18972979 McLeans Island is now broken ....

Reverted. Fully.

Error!
This is NZ SI Christchurch.

Hi,
way/1472871922 building is wrong...
Basics? A way cannot share a segment with itself. See
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=149.14459&lat=-35.26987&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

The inner dome is a 'building part' even if it is retractable. So it should be included in the building footprint.

I have corrected this. I hope you can use this as a guide.

Some have trees in their backyards - still a residential area.

I am reverting back to the 204 node segment for the National Park boundary. With a comment on the way.

Since you stated you have added over 700 nodes to a boundary of the Brisbane Waters National park that was some 204 nodes. This is data bloat.

Multipolygon outer way cannot share segments...
See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=172.54630&lat=-43.48947&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

Not an Id user. So I cannot say if Id issues a warning or not. If you use Id and it does not issue a warning then you know what to do?

What a mess!

No comment?

Ok ... resolved

Hopefully in future the PTv2 'rules' could be followed?
Stops/platform must be first in the relation followed by the ways.
And the stops/platforms and way must be in sequential order.
relation/4513982 was altered by this changeset to have the stops last... and not in the correct order. I have fixed this now.

Hi
Added tag construction=line as per normal tagging for construction things.
When construction is complete please delete the tag construction=line.

Note 'Eastern Line' has suspicious tag combination of electrified=no with frequency ??? Which is it..

My understanding is ...
Highway=crossing used for a footway/cycleway crossing a road.
Where something crosses a railway then railway=crossing should be used.

HI,
It is normal to reply to these comments.
Not only did this break the relation for Brisbane Waters but also 2 tree areas.

Please take more care particularly about deleting things. And some response would be appreciated.

Hints for better changeset comments can be found here osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments#How_should_I_write_Changeset_Comments?

HI,
The 'Course Grass Nusery' has no main tag so it will not be rendered.
The appropriate tag is {{tag|landuse|plant_nursery}} with {{tag|plant|grass}}. The name tag is for names only .. and it this case the description alone is enough.
I have made the appropriate changes .. hopefully it renders?

Resolved.

HI,
The source is now deleted but avalible through wayback machine. The source is a map of cycling infrastructure that could be used to form routes.
The relation/2170756 does not form a route .. so I have deleted the relation. What cycling infrastructure that is in OSM I have left alone.

Hi.
What makes relation/19209644 Memorial Ave West Path a 'route'? It looks more like simple cycling infrastructure to me.

Hi
The multipolygon relation/20080108 does not conform to 'the rules'.
See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=151.55602&lat=-32.72784&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

Me? I'd have each way with individual building/heigh tags .. but no address tags .. each of them would have some apartment number ..
I'd make a single node at the property entrance with the single address. If someone wants to detail the apartment number of each building then they can do so and delete the single address node.

Hi,
The residential area, way/1201063754, has 'shred segments' - see https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=138.60030&lat=-35.56541&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 like that area being excluded from the residential area is going to be a park. In general it is not required to exude things from residential areas .. to do so is a lot of work. So I'd not bother, the renders handle it. Simply map the outer boundaries and then map the parks, commercial and school areas etc.