Length 10 cm?????
Deleted. What are you thinking?

Hi,
1) The changset comment does not say what you are doing. See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments
2) breaks the admin boundary for Coogee.
3) the name key should not be used as a description e.g. name Pyramid with area=yes for a bit of playground equipment is not appropriate.

Reverted!

Hi,
A guide in principle .. one feature one main tag. There should not be a leisure=park with another tag landuse=* .. they should be on two separate features.
If a leisure=park is all grass then add the subtag surface=grass.

Tags of landuse_1 or _2 etc are not good. In fact any tag that is followed by _1 etc are not good .. best to separate them up into individual things.

That is fine. Somethings like these building parts are very confusing! And then there is landuse=grass grrrr.

Hi
The playground Way: 497966365 tagged with landuse=sand is not correct .. landuse is the human use of the land. The sand is a landcover, and in this situation the tag to use is surface=sand.
I have corrected this.

Hi,
You have a 'landuse=sand' for Way: 517307485 also taggged leisure=playground.
I think you meant landcover=sand .. but that will not render .. surface=sand should render.
Out of interest, where did you get landuse=sand from?

I have corrected this.

Hi,
The landuse key is for the human use of the land. Scrub is not a human use of the land.

Scrub is a land cover .. you can use landcover=scrub - it will not render .. and natural=scrub - that will render .. no matter if the scrub is natural or 'unnatural'.

Hi,
When you add a building:part .. the base of the building should carry the maximum number of levels, not just the number of levels it has it self. See building:part=*

Humm... not quite what I meant :)

The greens and driving range are within the golf course so don't need the leisure=golf_course tag themselves.

Chipping_green only has 2 uses around the world .. so it is not likely to be recognized. I would tag it golf=green, description=chipping green, surface=grass, lit=yes ... Similar for putting green though that has some 27 uses.

But better .. at least the relation won't through errors like it did before. The problem with rendering golf still remains .. people are thinking on it.

Relation - outer ways define the outer extent .. in this case of golf.
Inners make holes .. so they are not 'golf'.
Looking on relation/2081338#map=17/-37.84568/144.96342 it can be seen that the building, path and bunker are excluded from the driving range .. and that is not what you want? Look down on that page at the members. I think that you need to remove them from the relation as members - leave them on the map, but delete them as members in the relation. They are part of the infrastructure for the golf course.

---------------------- OK?
Then work on the tags of the relation.

The area is best tagged as a golf course - it has both a driving range and green .. while it has no golf holes you still play 'golf' there. So add tag leisure=golf_course.

Then remove the tags that should not be there. Leisure=pitch will be gone because there cannot be two leisure= different things. Surface=grass should be removed - not all the area is grass. Sorp=golf can go .. it is already in the leisure= tag. Lit=yes can go .. not all of it is lit - right out to the north? Description=driving range .. umm what about the greens? Might want to mention them too.
--------------
Now add a new area for the driving range, tag golf=driving_range, surface=grass, lit=yes. Starts at the building extends to the side for the bunker and then south towards the fence.

That make sense?

---------
Oh golf_1 ... I'd change that to a description - it is more likely to render.
And I've probably forgotten something. :)

Err .. tag the outer area (the relation) as a golf course see leisure=golf_course - this means removing hte pitch and driving range .. and I'd remove the grass as not all of it is grass.

Then I'd map the driving range as a separate way inside the golf course, with surface=grass.

Hi,
There are a number of problems...
The driving range relation .. lets deal with the relation problem first.
A multipologon relation has an outer way or in this case outer ways. These are correct.
However .. why are there inners or other ways in the relation? These form part of the driving range infrastructure .. they are part of the driving range operation and should not be excluded from the range?

Next .. the golf ...
Not all of this are is a driving range .. it has the putting greens too .. so I'd call the other area a golf course, then the inner areas can be mapped as the greens and a driving range. See osm.wiki/Relation#Multipolygon

Next golf_1 .. err _1 are not liked any more. For yours I'd use the tag description= to indicate what you want to say here. This has a chance of being rendered .. golf_1 has very little chance of bing rendered.

It is normal to respond to these messages. As in .. I don't understand XXX ..

Hi,
Welcome to OSM.
The additions you have made to the Albert Park Driving Range relation .. what role do they play .. they do not for the outer boundary .. nor are they an inner boundary .. they are part of the driving range? If they are part of the driving range then they don't need an entry in the relation as they are already inside it.

Thanks Brett.
Not zoomed in enough to see the Jack William Park so though it was not there.
I have left behind the way for the LPI Wiradjuri Park as a warning for others .. the new tags will not render but should give a message to anyone who down loads that area.

Hi,
football ??? what kind of football? Soccer?
Multiple sports are added using the ';' as a separator ... e.g. sport=cricket;soccer
Given the shape of the pitch I'll assume OZie rules.

The entries to this roundabout for the junction of Clarkson Drive, Inskip Avenue and Karoonda Road do not look like the entries you have made.
The one way sections should carry the name of the road too and should be tagged oneway=yes.

I have corrected this. Please take a look at it and use it as an example?

I'd not take a simple sign stating the address as the name of the building.. I would add it as the address of that building. If I recall correctly all the 'names' I removed were not entered as the building addresses .. I did add the addresses. I did not remove 'names' that reflected addresses eg 'One on Never Street' These were left as they were .. but the address was added in the address field.
What got to me was recognising one of the building .. but not recalling its name. For the life of me I knew its name but could not recall it .. and it definitely was not the address that was entered as the name.

Hi,
An area of scrub .. is not necessarily a reserve. Way: 580315513 I have changed from nature_reserve to scrub .. that is all you can tell from imagery. The LPI Base Map would show a reserve - this particular bit is inside a park.
Well spotted on Simon Pearce Park though. :)

Keep the comments on the changeset - makes it easier for me to track.
Add way/604071145 affected 2 boundaries .. I have fixed them.
Adding way/604071144 affected 2 boundaries.. I have fixed them.

Note: in NSW, Australia you can use the NSW LPI Base Map to see where boundaries should be - the purple lines. This also has road names. The vast majority of road names have been done. Boundaries are another matter .. don't go changing the ones in there already, there have been some official changes to boundaries that may not be in the LPI data yet, but as a fix to broken boundaries they should suit. Only if you are local and know the present situation should you change the boundaries. I'd not add new boundaries either .. there are some locals doing that.

Hi,
the relation for Valla Reserve has a name .. but no physical presence .. like a park. And if the relation is a park then it would include the parking, picnic and building areas within the park. So it is really just a simple way.

And then the boundaries. Use the LIP Base Map for these .... much better than a survey as it has the legal boundaries.

I have deleted the relation and edited things in the area.