Hi,
way/7839620 has a duplicate_segment from node/5302648261 to node/5302648250. The usual mthod of doing voids in buildings is make a relation with an outer way and an inner way.. However you look to be making a building consisting of parts - see building:part=* and osm.wiki/Relation:building#For_3D_modelling

HI,

I have changed the OVO building ... it may not be the way you intended but it now matches what OSM 3D wants ... in particular building:part and a building relationship have been added along with a height estimation based on 3m per floor. Please take a look at it and make changes to suit.

Hi,

This broke a boundary relation for Burwood Council.

-----------------------------------------
More care needed?

Hi,

This broke a boundary relation for Milsons Point.

Hi,

This broke a boundary relation for St Ives.

Hi,

Some of these highways are not 'connected' - that is they don't link up with other highways. This means it is impossibly for a router to use them to form a route. If they are closed to the public (motor vehicle/foot etc) then use access tags to specify that, don't leave them disconnected. If there are barriers then those too can be mapped. But leaving them disconnected will mean people like me will come along and connect them.

'roads' are meant as temporary classifications until such time as these can be correctly classified. I take these roads as 'unclassified' with surface=unpaved. .

Way: Dolcath Rd FT (492437191) ... OSM does not use abbreviations .. so RD should be Road .. FT .. Fire Trail .. but is that really the name or a description? I think that would be a description so tag it as description=fire trail

Hope that helps?

Welcome to OSM.

You have created a relation for the Mount Stromlo Water Treatment Plant. As part of that relation ship you have excluded various things from that relationship ... and therefore from the Mount Stromlo Water Treatment Plant. Yet at least some of these are defiantly part and parcel of the Mount Stromlo Water Treatment Plant! I would think every thing inside the outer boundary would be part of the Mount Stromlo Water Treatment Plant - so a relationship is not required - just tag the outer way and the job is done.

Hi,
In the relationship 7814228 for this retirement village ... why are some buildings excluded from the village? I suppose what I am getting at is .. is the relationship really required?

Thanks for spotting this error! I wonder how I made it... I certainly would not have added all that wikipedia and other detailed tags .. I'll add those to the correct airport .. but my error.

Hi,
I have separated the relation into 2 relations. The northern one could be a residential development Relation: 7798537. I have left it as trees, but it could be come landuse=brownfield with things are being built then landuse=residential .. but it needs local input to be certain.
Over to you Newton3?

Ok,
I have deleted the relation.
landuse=residential is not intended to mark individual properties. Accepted practice is to mark a block, suburb, village, town or city. Having small areas of other landuse inside landuse=residential is accepted practice. So I don't think that this will improve the map.
Adding things like addresses may have more benefit?

Note: Any messages you send me concerning this will be copied here, so others can see you response.

Hi,
1) The change set comment "change" does not describe what you are doing. This has been noted before yet you continue to use it.
2) You look to be ignoring the problems you have made through the changes you have made on existing OSM data. Please make corrections to fix these errors that can be found on http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=146.6&lat=-38.7&zoom=11
3) way/545592446 is poorly integrated with present OSM features ... for example your way/545592318!
4) Edit of Way: 61859149 - coastline .. that has an attribution of ABS .. yet you are using BING. It would be better to separate the section you are editing and place the tag source=bing on the bits you change.

Hi,
removal of way/4754106 has destroyed relation/7780209 as this was the outer for the relation. Did you really mean to remove the relation?

Hi,
I have changed this back to trees .. that is what is observable in bing. Newton3 .. you need to say what you are using for this change - it could be 'local knowledge' - that is very good and will trump any satellite imagery! However the relation, as ronyf1, says covers some areas that are designated reserves and conservation areas .. they probably are not now residential areas?
Tell us what your trying to do and we can help.

You have approximately 23 errors on http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=146.6&lat=-38.7&zoom=11. I am not going through your multiple edits to determine which error goes exactly with what change set.
Please correct the errors.

Please respond to this message.

Hi,
You changes have generated a number of problems.
Take a look at
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=146.6&lat=-38.7&zoom=11
You need to realize there is already stuff there, moving nodes around makes the old stuff wrong.
I'm not an Id user so cannot help you there. With the amount of broken stuff I'm inclinded to remove all your edits, so you have a clean slate to start again. Would this be suitable? Try to make small changes .. rather than large ones.

Hi,
relation/7676161 (farmland) has had it only outer way removed - now consists only of inner ... should this relation be removed???

Hi, welcome to OSM.

You have removed the name 'Manns Beach' from an administrative area ... Why? Note this is the name of an area .. it may take its name from a beach ... so it may be larger than the beach itself.

Your changes may have made the ways 'self intersect' .. but some one has corrected that. I'll reinstate the name to the admin area.
Take care.