Fine, that info must have came off a sign at one of the gates .. update it.

Hi,
This boundary is not closed (it does not form a loop to enclose an area). Are you going to finish it? Or should it just be deleted?

Your changeset comment says nothing...
Please read osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

What is the source of this information??

HI,
Welcome to OSM.
You will find there are a variety of views here. The boundary you changed was from the NSW Land And Property Information department - they are supposed to keep the property boundaries. I think the ones you changed are legal easements .. possibly for roads or even electricity supply lines .. the actual placement on the land may differ some what from the legal ones drawn up some time ago. The ones in the Stuart NP look to be very wide and I think come from stock routes.. I think they are interesting things to have on the map and show detail that you cannot see on the ground itself.
Some disagree with that and prefer to map what they think is NP from ground observations, but I find the LPI information is more accurate than what I can determine from ground observations.
Keep mapping, mistakes and difference of opinion are part of being human.

Hi,
The relation added relation for the Long Reef SLSC is not correct. Relations cannot have outer that share the same ways.

From the satellite look of it, it is one building with several parts - this should be tagged with a single outer way. then if you want add ways for each part and tag them as building:part etc.
I have turned this into a single way, if you want to tag more detail, do so.

Tags at present;

razed means the same as demolished.
removed means something different from razed, both of these say something about the method used to gain the absence of the feature. Yet the on the ground result is the same - the feature is no longer there. As a mapper I may not be able to determine the method, just the end result. I would like to have a single word that incorporates all these tags in one.
Same thing for the tags was, past and some uses of history .. all trying to indicate the past use of a feature that has been re-purposed.
Note I have added comments on the life cycle discussion page and on the tagging list so there can be a wider discussion and there might be some better ideas than my poor ones.
osm.wiki/Talk:Lifecycle_prefix

I have now copied this railway line to OHM .. and it is there nicely.

Sections of this line I have tagged 'ruined:' other sections 'nonexistent:' and the southern platform/station abandoned:

Not firm on the ruined: nor nonexistent: ... see how discussions on the tagging list go. Then I may make a proposal for both tags in the interests of making them the normal ones to use.

I have now copied this railway line to OHM .. and it is there nicely.

Sections of this line I have tagged 'ruined:' other sections 'nonexistent:' and the southern platform/station abandoned:

I think that truly represents what is there. And, for those that want the history .. they can use OHM, where it is tagged railway= -no disused abandoned etc as it records what was there between the tagged start and end dates.
If some one changes it back .. I'll not be 'happy' :) I accuse them of 'tagging for the render'.

I have now copied this railway line to OHM .. and it is there nicely.

Sections of this line I have tagged 'ruined:' other sections 'nonexistent:' and the southern platform/station abandoned:

I think that truly represents what is there. And, for those that want the history .. they can use OHM, where it is tagged railway= -no disused abandoned etc as it records what was there between the tagged start and end dates.
If some one changes it back .. I'll not be 'happy' :) I accuse them of 'tagging for the render'.

"others might disagree" ... Yes .. 'they' will disagree! However if a good alternative is offered (such as OHM) then 'we' might get agreement, at least the vast majority? Fingers crossed.

razed: is not on the wiki .. probably because the vast majority would 'disagree' with it :)

I agree 'gone: is not 'usual' - still thinking about it. I used this as a temporary hold for transfer of data to Open Historical Map (I hope).

'railway=razed' may only apply to track, not stations and other railway things. I think it is a poor tag! I would much rather have something like 'gone:' that can be used on other things as well as railway.

As I see it OSM has the following stages of 'decay';
disused: disused=*:
abandoned: abandoned=*:
ruins ... ruins=* I think this should be changed to ruins:

There could be the following;
razed: as further along from ruins.
archeological: :) or gone:

But for things that are archeological/gone I would think that they would be far better removed from OSM (not 'on the ground') and placed on OHM.

I hope to place these 'gone:' things on OHM soon.

Hi,
you entered 2 relations for groups of 3 houses.
1) The 'relationship' is unnecessary. All the buildings can be tagged as building=house on their ways, the relationship adds nothing to the information.
2) Relationships should not have touching or crossing outer ways. These do.

I have removed these relations, and correctly tagged the buildings.

Hi,
As the Buninyony line is mostly gone now I believe it should be moved to Open Historic Map. Once that is done, most of it should be removed from OSM as it is not present on the ground.

Yet to achieve the movement of the data. Once I have gained that knowledge I think there are many more lines that can be moved e.g. old gahn.

Hi,
Looks to be little left of this line (former Buninyong line). The associated stations too have disappeared. Should this be removed from OSM and put on OHM?

Hi,
Looks to be little left of this line (former Buninyong line). The associated stations too have disappeared. Should this be removed from OSM and put on OHM?

Hi.
I'll use Goodwin Retirement Village as an example.
Here you have a relation that has declared every building an inner of the 'village'. This means that every building is not part of the retirement village. I think that every building inside the outer way IS part of the retirement village! So everything inside the outer way is part of the retirement village? So the relationship can have all the inners removed, thus leaving one member as an outer way. That simplifies to a simpler single way with all the tags of the relationship on it. Then the relationship is redundant and can be deleted.
I have gone ahead and edited this for you so you can see the result.

Hi,
If you use JOSM for your edits ... then you can save your work to your local hard drive .. and work on it there. This saves loading up things that need further work .. like this path.

At the moment this renders .. as a path ..
It also generates error messages on OSMinspector. You could cheat and remove the highway=path tag? That would remove the rendering.

The use of the name tag for things other than name is disscouraged.. usually note=* or fixme=* are used to communicate to other mappers.

Note the satellite imagery from Digital Globe Premium has good resolution for some of that 'path', shows fallen trees for instance.

Hi,
I think Macpherson Street may now be open?

HI again,
Just looked and your a 'new' editor. Welcome!

I have some more questions on the service lane - you have it tagged as a driveway.. And no horses?
As a driveway - they don't usually have names.. at least around me. There is usually no restriction on horses .. are there really signs up banning horse traffic? And 2 lanes .. that would service a block of flats? House driveways are usually 1 lane.

HI,
Question. You have the service lane with the same name as the lead in street. Is this true? Usually service lanes around me have a different name. Both are now named Minno Street.