This change set changed the named "South Island' tagged as an island later an islet that applied to both the tree area and the sand area

to

being only the sand area. This is not correct.

I have made a new relation for the sand area ... natural=beach, surface=sand .... And then restored the island/islet to be the whole tree area and sand area.

Similar has been done for the other Cocoss Islands... If you have done similar elsewhere would you please correct those?

.

.

.

.

.

?
intermittent ...
"The rainfall in Daylesford is significant, with precipitation even during the driest month. "
"Precipitation here is about 617 mm | 24.3 inch per year."

Does not sound like a place where water ways could be tagged intermittent?

What is the source of this population data?

What is the source of this data?

I note that the kontur popultion webpage https://www.kontur.io/portfolio/population-dataset/ states "publicly available global population dataset by obtaining and processing all available data". Available data may come from copyright webpages .. and that is not suitable for entry into OSM.

The source statement in this changeset does not state the source of the population data .. which is the sole thing you changed?

Hi,
relation/8764842 - fairway - now has no outer ... but 2 inners.

Reverted.

This;
broke at least 3 administration boundaries,
has no stated source.

Suggest you state the source for all your changesets.

Hi,

You have buildings within buildings.. that is an error. Possibly one of the 'buildings' is a building:part=*?

I have 'fixed' duplicated nodes using JOSM Validator tools - automatic.

Hi,
Welcome to OSM!

The beach you added has some problems.
First being Australian it would normally be a sand beach ... mud, rock are some other kinds of 'beaches'. So I'd add the tag 'surface=sand'.
Second .. arr you have 2 beach areas mapped - confusing. One of them has errors - see way/1009404700#map=15/-37.7795/149.1273 The way cross itself and that is a mistake. I'd simply delete that way - leaving the other one as the beach. The other one is way/1009404701#map=15/-37.7795/149.1273

Keep mapping.

Hi
Would not these 'shelters' be better mapped as covered walkways? highway=footway, covered=yes, surface=paved ???

One member relation for water deleted - not a closed way. This was given to you in your upload warnings...

Boundaries are not fences in OSM.

A relation - boundary is expected to be a closed way, not an open way. So "Vales Point Ash Dam" fails!

Suggest:
tag the way as "barrier=fence" "description=ash retention" "name=Vales Point Ash Dam"

Do:
Delete the relation.

"Is it wrong to have abutting closed ways with identical tags? I am doing this when there are huge areas to help manage the large number of outer ways"

For relations;
If both ways are in the one relation ... then use caution! One of the ways maybe in a different relation (administration boundary, national park for example) and should not be combined.
Some large relations are deliberately split into smaller relations as this makes it easier to manage editing wise.

In both cases it is not 'wrong'. Unless you have a specific reason for doing it, I'd not bother.

Sorry but I'd not an iD user so cannot help there.

Hi,

This change set reverted fully. Meaning all the changes have been undone.
Why? To restore the White Rock Conservation Park boundaries.

You have only made a few edits, so making errors is a way in which you learn. Don't let it worry you greatly. Keep mapping - there is heaps to be done.

The tag 'name' is for the name ONLY. Not for descriptions such as 'tank'.

Storage tanks should be tagged
man_made=storage_tank .. and
building=storage_tank

Hi,
I don't think the Rocky Plains-Eucumbene fire station should be tagged 'health care' ... And probably a similar error with the adjacent building?