With this edit a landuse=forest and a natural=wood was placed on the same part of the Jinjera Hill – By the same mapper who mapped the other forest two week earlier :-)
Please check your work before uploading and delete the double tagged parts.

After this edit your forest relation lays over an area mapped as residential, see way/538632435
Please correct your work.

This edit placed natural=wood relation/10668996 above the landuse=cemetry tagged since 2013, see way/233587980.
Please correct it.

This edit placed landuse=forest (nodes 7185664758, 7185665181, 7185665487, 7185666222 and more) on top of an area where landuse=residential was mapped since January 2016 (north of the nodes node/3964005596 and 3964005594)

Please correct your work.

This issue is closed now.

Die Kartierung am Weg scheint in Ordnung zu sein. Es gibt westlich des Weges ein Wasserbauwerk.

Beim Gewässer way/757863406 ist der südliche Teil klar. Wie genau es im Gebüsch aber weitergeht, müßte man nochmal klären.

>Bei Deiner Variante musst Du konsequenterweise auch die nördliche Waldfläche von der südlichen trennen...

Das tat ich. Nördlich liegt eine "Wochenendfläche" bzw. ein größerer Kleingarten. Südlich davon ist Wald nach dem Waldgesetz.

> Und solange man den Weg nicht flächig darstellt oder die Lücke mit einer anderen Fläche füllt, ist meine Variante akzeptabel ...

Verkehrswege sollten nicht auf Landnutzungsgrenzen gemappt werden.

>Was soll denn zwischen Wald und Weg noch sein?
Nichts, denn der Weg ist ein Teil des Waldes.

>Wenn die Fläche vom Weg losgelöst wird, dann bitte auch richtig. In der Realität geht der Wald bis an den Weg.
Wie vor, Der Wald endet an der Nordseite des Weges.

Die Sache ist jetzt so in Ordnung.

Additional area in question:
3. "Island" in the forest:
way/769786394

Hi All,

thanks for the hints. Answers for the open issues in detail:

@korolenok
>brownfield is improper for burnt areas.

This topic may stay open. My current opinion is to map the burnt houses as ruins:building=house and to add landuse=brownfield on top of landuse=residential or landuse=farmyard for the affected buildings only.

Tagging natural or agricultural areas without buildings as burnt has become worthless in the meantime. The grass is already green again.

>shape of cross

The cross remained it's shape but is now at another location, see
node/7185558052 and node/7185558053

I tried two relations to collect the effects of the September and the December burns in cobargo. Feel free to add your opinion at those changesets:
relation/10591125
relation/10686418

@warin61
> The power is carried on POLES not TOWERS.

Ok. I thought that a high voltage lines are always hanging on towers and the lower voltage lines to the final customer are on small poles.

> The line voltage would not be possible to judge from the listed sources, delete these.

The voltage is clearly written alongside the high voltage lines in the LPI NSW topographic map. Please see it on the map near the pole node/7117256616

@Data_Working_Group
I did take notice of the responses to talk-au. Please see the answer to korolenok above. You may have noticed the very crazy approach back then: osm.wiki/Project_of_the_week/2010/Aug_15

@aharvey
An alternative to =brownfield may be =construction. But this would neglect those who have started rebuilding their homes already. See way/764635325

>Where you changed the fire station from an area to a point,
The Krauts map amenities as node primarily. Additionally the surroundings may get building=fire_station; landuse=commercial but they do not carry further information like branch or telephone numbers.

@all
For further discussion about a specific topic please use another changeset and not this overcrowded one.

>When does ...
A scheme for mapping official landuse to OSM types has been developed for Europe, see osm.wiki/Corine_Land_Cover

>Wider audience ...
Please initiate this discussion on talk-au.

Areas in question:
1. The are with some trees between the forest and the meadow: relation/10591122

2. The area below the power line with trees regularly chopped off: relation/10591123

So when you personally have "doubts" about the work or the vision of other people, what are you doing?

Do you delete their work to create blank spots on OSM?

Or do you share some confidence that others may know what they do?

Scrub is the tag used when there are some trees, some grass and something else and when it is not forest and not grass. It is as simple as that.

The LPI topograhic map has a 25 x 25 m block size to distinguish between Closed and Open Forest and Woodland (combined with some contrast optimization and compression artifacts). That should be fine enough to map some forest.

> will always be blank areas on the map.
In our case here the blank areas were actively created by deleting the former tagging.

Scrubs seems to be a very fine tag for this areas, see natural=scrub The third paragraph reads: "In addition to use on natural habitats, natural=scrub is often used to tag semi-natural and semi-developed areas, such as areas of uncultivated shrubs along highways, and scrub in abandoned pasture which is transitioning back to forest."

The area between your forest border and my eastern meadow has a size of 8,6 ha. Why shouldn't such an area be tagged as scrub?

I wrote that I did use the LPI topographic map. This map displays different kinds of forest with different shades of green.

And I recommended the six map legend to you to get an impression of those different greens. Please feel free to read more carefully before accusing others of a violation of law.

> I did not make the wikipage
Thanks for raising the page Mapping_Landuse_in_Australia on the list. That page is linked from the Tips for Aussies page, please see osm.wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Mapping_Landuse_in_Australia

> I have now added a large area of trees - this replaces the smaller area you added.
With deleting the scrub area between the forest and the meadow you created an area of "white" landuse. I see natural=scrub as perfect tagging for those sparsely wooden areas. Is something bad with this?

>it is not something that OSM maps.
As far as I know the founders and the community of OSM had a "free to do" approach. For example flood prone areas are defined like administrative borders in Europe. Why shouldn't the OSM map them?

A doubtful wiki page exists on this issue. It has three edits since 2010: osm.wiki/Mapping_Landuse_in_Australia Please consider deleting it in favour for osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines

Meadows are clearly visible by the presence of fences and the "shortness" of the gras. If in doubt, check the grass on other imagery made at a different time of the year.

@1 I beg to differ but in this case I removed the landuse key.

@2 That was indeed bad tagging.

The issues above are solved with changeset/80520809

@3 This general problem exceeds the discussion within a changeset, please see changeset/79344998.
Final resolution shoul dbe noted in the Wiki.

way/763346427 is the northern border of the forest relation/10591123. You probably mean this relation in comparison to relation/10591122.

I did not use the imagery but the LPI topographic map. This map has four different kinds of "land with trees":
1. Closed forest: 80-100% crown cover.
2. Open forest: 50-80% crown cover
3. Woodland: 20-50% crown cover.
4. Pine forest
For an example of the different shades of green please see the legend at http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/etopo/geopdf/25k/8825-2N%20WANDELLA.pdf.

I mapped the Closed and Open forest as forest and the Woodland as scrub.

As I learned in the meantime, natural=wood is preferred in Australia for this kind of forests. I corrected this with changeset/80518326

Do you see the need of further changes for the Woodland areas tagged as scrub?

Warin61 wrote:
> Deleted 'path'.
Why didn't you change to highway=track? By simply deleting you killed a lot of data.

> A fire truck does not say on roads or paths.
What means "say" here? A typo?

aharvey wrote:
> since it's from a copyrighted source.
The copyright of this FB video restricts the redistribution of the video itself. It does NOT prohibit the use of information from within the video. The gathered information, here coordinates, can freely used by anyone.

I assume that the Australians manage trees standing near their houses to reduce the fire risk.
If that is generally wrong, then natural=wood would be correct.

Source for the "Sugarbum Fairy Farm" name from https://www.facebook.com/pages/Sugarbum-Fairy-Farm-Cobargo-Nsw-2550/266124807342611

Source for the location of the burnt house is the intact house of the neighbour (way/764873470) in the background, shown in first three seconds of this video https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/i-m-dreading-it-locals-return-to-devastated-cobargo-20200110-p53qcz.html

Location is verified by
1. The brick garden walls shown in above video and on https://www.realestate.com.au/property/224-wandella-rd-cobargo-nsw-2550
2. The impressive roof structure is clearly visible on any aerial imagery of this address.

The surface=compacted for way/764873469 was taken from an aerial. But other aerials show different surfaces. I'm going to withdraw this tag.

Please see the "Sailing and Canoeing" section on this page: http://www.cobargoscouts.org.au/cobargo-jamborette-2016-photos-page-3.html

Please feel free to add a sailing tag, too, when you are restoring the canoeing tag.