Reentered removal of touching rings.
Confirmed relationships are closed using JOSM validator and JOE+SM relationship editor.

If you find this relationship broken .. contact me .. I want to see what your talking about...

'The Oaks' .. no one lives there .. so it is not a 'neighborhood' nor a 'hamlet' .. it is a 'locality'? node/117041402.

I have also altered the classifications of tracks/paths around here to suit the LPI Base Map.

Node Portland Common (4400710719, v1) looks to be a duplication of Way: Portland Common (52054047)

See way/52054047

Hi,
Way: Private property (40260304) is named, at least in part 'Bark Hut trail'. It is also in part inside a National Park .. so not 'Private property'. In addition hte name should not be used to signify access ...

Cannot see it in imagery.
Lacks name, source. Not visible in imagery nor on LPI base map.

Will be removing and entering LPI data.

Hi,
Way: 439819578 you set sport=hockey, I have changed this to sport=field_hockey .. hockey could be either field or ice hockey. OSM now uses field_hockey or ice_hockey to avoid confusion.
See the wiki sport=hockey

Fixmes in place.
I have done the 'easy ones' - those with existing simple waterways. These are quick so possibly were the best to 'fix' first.
Around 105 left without waterways. And 5? that are on waterway areas ...

Humm ..
Maybe I should put a 'fixme' on them .. that way the 'fixme' can be removed by anyone who fixes it? 'fixme=attach to waterway' would do.

Yep.
I will target those with no local waterway first. Ones with adjacent waterway will be next.

I have done one .. and that creek looks to have no 'outlet' .. other than some 'lakes'. Only another 194 to go.

Hi, welcome!

Firstly ... there is better imagery available for NSW .. instead of selecting bing select LPI Imagery and/or LPI base Map ... the Base Map is usefull for boundaries - such as the park you have here.

Secondly .. the park is sufficiently mapped using the way only, you don't need a node with the same information .. that only confuses renders/end users.

OK? Hope that helps.

I am slowly removing the node that duplicates the way - same/similar tags. These are data bloat.
It is normal to respond to these comments inputMan.

Strangely I just came across Norah Creek Road - way/180236917. I was extending Mandagery Creek and there it is ... Norah Creek Road.

Now that is interesting .. says Nora Creek.. as an old name. So maybe the LPI data base is more upto date here.. I have come across places where it is old.

Norah Creek?
I have Jews Creek from LPI, cannot find Norah Creek on GeoScience Australia place name search. Possibly local community being 'politically correct'? way/367426782. I have left the culvert with that name, but changed the creek - along with its course.

Corrected errors. :) thanks.

The Styx River is not the boundary of the Styx River State Forest .. nor do I think it is the boundary of the Cunnawarra NP... I have separated it off the Styx River State Forest. Will 'look at' the NP boundary later.

Hummm ... the relation should have tags on it. The ways should be 'free' of the relationship tags.

I think there are at least 2 tracks here ... the relation is for the outer one. I have added that relationship.

There is more detail taht can be added - a barrier with gaps.. I have added those too.

Extended and added detail from LPI Hydrography data for this creek.

Hi
way/208009289 was tagged
highway=pedestrian
historic=memorial
tourism=viewpoint
name=Royal Regiment of Australian Artillery

That is 3 features on one OSM element... too many!
I want to add
name=Mount Pleasant Lookout...

So I have removed the tag tourism=viewpoint off to a node and added the name.

It would be best to have one OSM element for each feature.

The cricket pitch I cannot see in Bing.

The 'mini-soccer' pitches are visible .. but
undocumented in the OSM wiki
too easy to confuse with other things.
So I have left them off as I cannot reliably map them.