Deletion of ways 138545239 and 138545236 means relation/1865554 is now not closed.
So I have deleted the relation...

Relation 99328 has no tags... deleted.

Crossing ways generates errors...
way/7114395 - grassland crosses from inner to outer ways ..
I have changed it to a relation/7127339.

This removed the from and too ways from the turn restriction relation/6896875.
This removed the from way from the turn restriction relation/6896877.
And possibly others at this intersection?

You have removed from relation/1676980 - forest the way/37523769 that forms its outer .. so the forest is no longer there. And that way no loner exists... so I am deleting the relation. No more forest.

Opps deletion of way/98544635 has removed the outer for relation/1412923 wood.
So I have deleted the relation ...

Arr .. the southern section has that name while the northern section has OPR.. correcting.

Hi,
Where did the name for Polia Road come from?
The LPI base map show this as 'Old Pooncarie Road'.

Hi,
You have way/322193363 tagged as a private track .. the LPI base map shows this as a tertiary road ... several other roads are shown out here on the LPI Base map too. I'll put those in.
Arr came to your way/259154081 - tagged as driveway private yet LPI shows it as tertiary. Similar for way/322193368. So I have added a track to the top .. but tagged it tertiary ... for the moment.

Fixed multipolygon 7102520. The ways should not touch ... Also added landcover=grass tag.

Arr .. I see now.
What you are deleting are displaced things.

My experience with LPI data suggest in many instances it is better than the data in OSM despite the mappers attribution of 'source=survey' or 'source=gps'. How do I know that ? In the instances of roads i have used the Strava heat map .. and that confirms that the LPI data is better than the OSm data.

I personally decided to add the duplicates so that users could see both .. and hopefully decide to edit the incorrect one out.

In the instance of Tuckers Lookout the LPI one appears to conform closely with written descriptions and the imagery .. I feel a personal survey coming on with GPS, camera, tripod and a packed lunch.

Looking back at my old files for lookouts ... each node carries a tag "fixme=check for duplictes and web links" .. and each node was manually checked against the osm map background for the duplicate.. then those were uploaded to OSM having deleted each fixme tag as they were done. However node of those files carry the Tuckers Lookout node .. so I am wondering if I downloaded the OSM lookouts .. and then some how uploaded them accidentally - not part of my checking/data.

I have looked back at my lookout files (I did not bother with check my old campsite files .. but I'd not think I was consistent from one feature type to another .. hopefully improving all the time) .. and cannot find a duplicate for tuckers lookout ... so the checking was done. Did something else go wrong.. my clumsy fingers for instance?
I do take it that these were on top of one another ?

Are these 'cycleways'? I think these would be more of a mtb track .. and those would be better tagged as a 'path' 'unpaved' with a relation 'route' 'mtb'
If tagged as I suggest they would then appear on https://mtb.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=14!-32.5441!151.1371 as a route - highlighted with a right hand panel that you can get for a gpx track and elevation profile...
see https://mtb.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=15!-35.1138!147.3059 for an example.

It is very easy to miss things that have uses in multiple relationships. I think that is what happened here.
This particular relationship is puzzling .. I have left a note on their changeset.
As for the forest .. possibly that is obsolete? However, in Queensland some National Parks are also used for other things .. so that may be the case here? I certainly don't know.

This Relationship 6026831 - multipolygon does not have any tags that will make it render ...
I think it would be safe to delete, the outer way has been removed by someone else so restoring it will take some work .. and as it has no effect on the map probably not worth the effort?

1)
You can respond to this comment on your changset by;

a) Going to the changeset changeset/45185296#map=9/-37.1910/146.9916

b) loging in - use your OSM password.

2) I don't know how you edit .. I use JOSM and there I can download any OSM feature and look at it. So Relationship 6026831 makes some sense to me .. and others. You have found it ...but the Way: State Forest (401738946) only documents what is inside that way.

3) Looking at the Relationship 6026831 .. it does not make that much sense even if it had an outer way! As the tags it has don't really mean much to the map! May have to contact the originator and see what they say.

I am looking at multipolygons that have errors in OZ ..and trying to fix them. This is one of a few that I have tried to 'fix' but have felt the need to contact those that have touched them previously, hence this changeset comment. Contacting me by other means ... leads me to back track and having to re-reference things .. takes time. Please try to use the changeset comments as that keeps things organized (at least for me).

No roles on Goodna either .. could you check the rest?

You forgot to add roles for the members of Redbank...

You forgot to add roles to the members of relationship for Brookwater.