Hi,
relation/7374580 will not render as you have not declared a physical object like building=hospital. Also this relation generates errors - you cannot have crossing outer ways.
Either
map each individual building and neglect the connecting corridors
OR
map it as one building?
OR
do a lot or reading on OSM indoor mapping?

Hi,
way/489761129 - wood. has 'duplicate segments' - from OSMinspector. It also contains areas that are not covered in trees - so not a wood. If it must be mapped then I suggest -
smaller areas.
Or a relation - so that 'holes' can be created inside the outer edge.

I would rather have each valley trees area mapped separately. But that is me.

Humm 'a passion'? Well it was pointed out to me that I had made a few errors. So I fixed them .. since then I have realized the work involved .. so have contributed there where my knowledge/skills permit. I do like to see stuff that is in the data base being rendered - for that to happen well the data needs to be 'good' at least reasonably conforming to the data 'rules'. Unfortunately they do change over time. That can be a good thing in cleaning stuff up, can be a lot of work too.

Now for the split combining thing. In JOSM when I select something it should tell me that it is a member of a relation (or 2,3,4 etc). Yes some are members of a few relations - think Qld, NSW with national parks on either side with councils to go with that .. gets very messy!
It is fine to break them into smaller bits - those simply can be added together in the relation. The problem comes when they are combined into one way .. now the relation/s have a way longer .. and it may not join as before.

I don't know what polatch will do for you. I only know what JOSM will do. Most of my training has started with small 'baby' software .. when I wanted to do some thing more complex the trainer instructed me to learn a more complex bit of software .. and then I wanted to do something more complex yet - another bit of software to learn. Now I start learning with the most complex bit of software .. I may not be using it all now .. but if the time comes I don't have to learn something else!

Yes the map has come a long way from a blank bit of paper. But things do change .. like my local buss route .. cut in half. So even when it is 'on the map' the data does change.

Arr I see!
When you joined blackbutt rd together .. you should not have ... a section of it is used by those relations, joining the rd together means long sections of the rd lead these relations off into nowhere.
I have corrected it by separating balckbutt rd back into the required sections.

Hi
This has broken both relations Black Creek and Swans Crossing.

No professional here ... I pick these errors up on OMSinspector
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=151.04&lat=-31.6&zoom=8

Think you really need to stop deleting stuff?

There is also a shared segment in the relation. That needs to be addressed.

Humm
Relation for Boondall Wetlands;

has no tag for what it physically is ... say natural=wetland
includes an area leisure=common ..

?? is the leisure=common part of this wetland ... then move the tag natural=wetland off the larger outer way on to the relation.

I have already made the changes.

The buildings were 'semidetached' sharing a common wall between each pair. By knocking through the common wall they become one building. So I have mapped them as one building. Each part of the building can be mapped using the tag building:part=yes if required.

sport=football ???
soccer?
rugby?
or australian_football?!

highway=road is meant to be temporary .. as in unknown type of road.
The LPI base Map can be used to determine road types .. these would be tracks/unclassified. Edited. They might be service, service=driveway if you see then that way too.

Netball and basketball have slight different sizes of court. And where they share a surface they have different line colours too. The line colours can be tagged correctly if they are separate ways ... but not if they are ; separated sports.

I have done one where there are tennis, netball and basket ball all on the same surface... some of these have a 90 degree rotation from one sport to the other .. with a differing number of effective pitches between sports .. not easy to do that with ; but so much easier with separate ways.

I have done similar things with cricket/football pitches too.

Thanks for finding that. Fixed.
What was I thinking back then?

relation/7109263 the same comment.

Why are you using relations for these things? KISS.

Relations don't share outer segments. See OSMinspector

These houses look to be separate buildings.
level cannot be both 1 and 2 ..

Needs fixing.

Relation 7139156 shares some outer segments - this is a no no.

This is all one building? then each bit is a building:part thing.

Take a look at what I have done here. Deleted the relation. Added a Way: Sofia Restaurant Camberwell (502510513) that is the entire outer of the building and included those tags from the relation. Then each of the 4 parts have been tagged building:part.

Multipolygons don't do shared ways on outers..
So these might be best as simple separate ways.
Doing this generates a warning - overlapping railways. I think that is ok - platforms do share segments.

The 'Slips' ... umm
This is part of a relation - relations don't like shared segments .. so how to 'fix' this?

So what is the 'slips'? What is the source of this name .. and to what does it refer?

Hi,
relation/7246859 - building=yes;roof ???
Umm is it a roof ...or a building with a roof?

Roof only then building=roof is fine.
If it is a building with roof then building=yes is fine. But no ; for building.

The relation also shares an outer segment. That is a no no, throws error in OSMinspector. If they are 2 buildings then have them as separate ways. If it is one building with separate parts then building:part is a solution.

Source? Arr Digital Globe?

Hi,
Multipolygon relation/6664382 - the Westfield building. Multiplygons don't like shared segments, I think this would be better as a key building:part.
The landuse declaration would be better as the larger area of Chatswood - on the basis of one feature one element in OSM.
So I have changed this - hope it is better.

HI
Relation multiploygon 6981082 (a building) shares segments - multiploygons don't do this (unless it is an inner).
Looks like a single building of 3 parts .. so I will delete the relation, and add the 3 parts.