Hi,
I have taken the liberty of making a relation for this trail, See https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=14531438&type=relation&map=12.0/-14.2056/132.3147

I have separated some of the track at campsites to make the sections work.

I reordered them so as to make the trail continuous and in-sequence. This makes it much easier to spot gaps and 'fix' them.

I have not moved anything out of the relation .. unless it conflicted with the route. There was one bit that uses the bibb track but had a short cycle path off to the side, could have removed the bibb track and included a short section of road there .. but well simpler.
I think the alternatives ( I placed the role 'alternative' on them IIRC) could be moved to the 'alternatives' relation. As for the buildings (shelters) and campsites .. they presently have no formal place in the OSM relation.. not that OSM cannot change ... but I see no one thinking of it.

I'm thinking of walking the bibb track .. and as I was making alterations to it and they both use the same bits occasionally I anted to make certain I did not accidentally destroy the bike relation.

Hi,

Way: Larapinta Trail Section 6 (1090363151) is now not part of the Larapinta Trail relation - instead that now has Way: 1044425939 - a vehicle track... Is that intended? As a walker I'd prefer the narrow path compared to the vehicle track :)

"Relations of type multipolygon are used to represent areas (polygons), typically complex areas with holes inside, or consisting of multiple disjoint areas." The building here are not 'disjointed' so break the rules. See osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon

Possibly use the site relation osm.wiki/Relation:site ???

Sorry .. I'll try for less gibberish. :)

I have edited the Relation: Munda Biddi Trail (5810814) to make it contiguous. I have moved those ways that are not part of the contiguous sequence to the bottom of the relation and added roles that reflect what I think they are. Possibly they should be in the 'Munda Biddi Alternate Relation' ...

Is that somewhat clearer? Note I am not local nor have I walked the trail as yet .. possibly next year, fingers crossed.

Hi,
Way: 1090713488 looks like it could be a container, not a building. Maxar is usually more upto date than other imagery and does not show the thing.. so a container NOT a building.

Suggest you delete it and any others that have gone!
The DCS Imagery is the most accurate for location in NSW. The changeset source only says 'satellite imagery' ... that does not say which one...

Still not fixed...

See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=120.64522&lat=-23.87898&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

And quote from osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon "Relations of type multipolygon are used to represent areas (polygons), typically complex areas with holes inside, or consisting of multiple disjoint areas." Note the 'disjointed areas' .. this is not a disjointed area... so it is not a multipolygon.

Role of Way: 1090662035 should be inner for Relation: Lake Lefroy (14253773)

Leave you to fix it.

Hi,
The Relation: Munda Biddi Trail (5810814) looks to have some alternative bits - I have given them that role and they are towards the bottom of the listed ways. See what you think...

Replacing apartment with roof is not correct! Where did the apartments go? They are still there...

Reverted in full.

this relation needs to go. It should be replaced by building:part. Ideally the correction should be done by the original mapper.
See changeset/124703933

6 train route relations remain broken.

These are
relation/8014084
relation/3780904
relation/8406939
relation/12418296
relation/8406942
relation/12433031

Please advise of when you can fix these errors caused by your mapping.

Opps,
Changeset comment should be prefixed with "Australia, SA, "

Hi
relation/14509584 shares segments. That is an error.

I'd delete the relation and simply put the tags on the ways.

Hi,
I looked for a beach named 'Surf' and did not find it.. is this just a description?

Hi,
If this is a club .. then what is its name? Might have been better left as amenity=social_facility and just add building=yes?

Yep, that will do it. Some of my changeset comments are one letter .. just my fumbling.

Hi
Cricket nets with long jumps at the same location ??? See way/1036761312

Hi
Extrapolated from what?
This does look to be part of the PSMA boundaries in places but not in other places. Looks to be missing sections of Lee Point, Tiwi ... I have not checked further.

Hi,
Some of these look a little off square. One has duplicated nodes causing the building to cross itself ... that is an error that should be fixed. Ideally it should have been fixed before upload. See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=115.91631&lat=-31.99583&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