Hey hey .. thanks guys.
I have been adding holes on the tree area using Ersi clarity .. will use the gpx trace to realign the Ersi imagery and correct my mapping! Humm might be better off using Bing .. the Ersi correction changes too much form one area to another...

I'll put in cliff lines once I have done that.

This is not a cycling route .. so it is not an 'lcn'.

I have retagged it as a 'rwn' - regional walking network.

The track you have entered looks to go up a vertical face at about node/6177428032.
Looking at Ersi clarity there is a nice level track that I would think a normal walker would be far happier with.
Later on the OSM path goes further inland that shown on Ersi, but i think this is a track realignment by ParksTas to reduce risks of people falling over the cliff.

Dam depth and capacity? The sourced cannot be the LPI Imagery... were these obtained form the website https://www.esc.nsw.gov.au/copyright-notice?

You will note the CC by 3 license is not OSM compatible.

Merged nodes to remove close node vertices.

Also squared up the way/771529041.

I have changed the residential area to reflect the residential area.. not including the roads. The roads are landuse=highway.
Note that natural=wood can overlap land use, natural=wood is a land cover not a land use.

Way: 382797425 is the bit in question that overlaps the residential area. In particular Node: 3860149903 is the node if moved or deleted would remove the overlap. This node was entered on 2015-11-26T05:22:24Z by Yeti Hunter

My edit had no effect on this overlap, it was there before my edit. .

See also
https://www.subiaco.wa.gov.au/Privacy-and-Disclaimer
that has
Copyright notice

The material produced by the City of Subiaco on this website is protected by copyright under the Copyright Act 1968.

Note ... ther is a copyright notice at the bottom of their first web page ... do you have permission to use their date?

Note 2 ... the suburban boundary is not closed... See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=115.80979&lat=-31.98572&zoom=12

Hi,
Welcome to OSM.

This changeset broke (removed a section) of the administration boundary for Majors Creek and Jembaicumbene. I have repaired these.
Administration boundaries are not something that moves often, they need little work. In NSW they are visible on the LPI Base Map for use in OSM. They are usually 'relationships' - groups of ways, each way is usually shared between 2 administration districts .. they are not easy for a beginner to deal with.

Don't let this discourage you. There is lots to map.

Please explain:

Source of boundary for 'Cobargo Apex Park'.

Source of name for 'Cobargo Apex Park' and why you deleted the name 'Cobargo Town Park' as seen on the LIP Base map.

Source of the name 'Sculpture Walkway'.

Source of the path 'Sculpture Walkway'.

Source for the barrier Way: 771340263 - particularly where hidden under the bridge and trees.

way/766791536 is not shown as a swap in either the LPI Base Map nor The LPI Topo map. Yet you have it tagged as a swamp.

relation/10693428 also is not shown as a wetland nor a swamp in the LPI Base Map nor The LPI Topo map. Yet you have it tagged as a wetland, previously you had it tagged as a swamp.
------------------
The only swamp area shown on the LPI Base Map and the LPI Topo map is Way: 771395490.

No. The site has more than one hospital .. and none of the names are 'NSW Hospital'.

The building is not underground. The error is the overlap of one building with another.

Actually there are 2 buildings here - as can be seen by the boundary wall..

Fixed.

This area is not a swamp.

See the LPI Base Map.

Please delete your entry.

My entry was for trees as a land cover using the tag natural=wood. It says nothing about the land use. Land use does not conflict with land cover so landuse=residential can co exist with natural=wood.

51195671 ? A building in Russia as a way.

Arr .. got it I think.

Note natural=wood is not a landuse, but a land cover. landuse=forest usually has trees but not after some harvesting, I do like to keep natural=wood off forestry area for that reason.

Corrected, and added more deatil to tree area. Thanks.

Not damage. While these things may be visible, they may not define the park boundaries. Where OSM has the legal boundaries they should be considered.

Sidewalks can be part of landuse=highway, not part of the park.

Fences have not been mapped, they may not be the park boundaries. Some place their fences well inside boundaries in order to avoid surveying fees. The council may put a fence between the road and foot path to increase safety and stop people parking within the park. So a fence cannot be taken as the parks actual boundary.

The 'stream' may not be part of the park, but an easement through properties.

A local with more knowledge might extend the park at the rear of Nos 5, 7 and 9 Cobargo Bermagui Rd .. but that requires knowledge neither of us have.

No overlap found.
Can you specify any nodes?