Adding a node with only the tag name=Willoughby seafoods is not good. There has to be a physical tag ... shop=seafoods or amenity = restaurant.
Same with 'Baby Savings'.

Hi,
The towers throw errors in OSM inspector - no physical key. The problem is the relation ... thought a site relation would be better .. looked that up and that then suggested a simple way around the outside .. and the best thing for that I think is landuse=commercial .. with the name, website and address on it. Then the towers can have their names building etc on them.
So this what I have done, deleted the relation and made a Way: The Citadel Towers (675737940).

See how that works?

Hi,
Welcome to OSM!

This changeset has added no new roads.
It appears to have attempted to make a section of 'Research Park Drive' as being under construction?
I have removed that suggestion.
Comment?

I'd use what there is there as a basis for another go. Most of it is not rendered .. some of it has no tags. Certainly some of it will be useful.

I'm not local so cannot help. Good luck to who ever takes it on.

The LPI Base map shows a different alignment.

It is not possible to use a GPS for the underground track.

I suggest that the track be aligned to the LPI Base Map data.

Hi
You have the construction tags wrong. They were correct before you changed them.
See osm.wiki/Construction

E.g. Node: Cherrybrook (2699627446)
Tags:
"name"="Cherrybrook"
"station"="subway"
"construction"="yes"
"railway"="station"

Should be:
"name"="Cherrybrook"
"station"="subway"
"construction"="station"
"railway"="construction"

Hi,
Node: Wynstan (2422532836) has no physical tags ... delete?

Hi,
Is this cycleway construction open by now?
Way: 402570220

Really destroyed the path I survey there...
And combined it incorrectly with the suburban boundaries...

Hi,
Looks like the cycle trail joins the road to cross the bridge. If it does than then the cycleway tail ends on both sides of the bridge as a cycleway. The route should then include the road as part of the route.
If the cycleway is separate from the road then they presently overlap - using some of the same nodes. Those need to be separated out.

Let me know if you need help - you'll have to tell me what goes on there.

Hi,
These are better viewed with the NSW LPI Imagery.

Way: Marsden Oval (655863367) Not a park. Part of the school .. recreation ground.. probably.

Tree area .. the 'name' is a description - use description= tag for this.

Revert.

No changeset comment... again.

Tree cover is NOT repeat NOT a park and therefore has no name.
Reverted. and change sets 67786489 and 66042338.

Lambert park is NOT all trees.

The area of Lambert Park is best mapped using the LPI Base Map - not an area of trees and grass.

Reverted.

Arr .. it is only documented on the Australian tagging guide lines .. not paid attention to that bit as it is not something I have mapped.

Thanks.

The roof is better mapped as a rectangle, it is the truth as the roof is not a single point, and it will then render.

The picnic site is an area, if that table is in use I would simply use the lookout area. So I have no problem separating it from that single node.

Then the contentious issue - the trig point and the peak. I would take the peak as being the highest point of the ground - not the trees nor the building nor the trig point. The area is relatively flat, the area around the building appears to have been graded - therefore lowered. So I would think the present real peak is not there but a short distance away.

Next .. any map maker will tell you they distort the map in order to be able to present information. In OSM we accept boundary simplifications with some degree of error.

So:
the trig point remains as a single node
the roof as an area coaxial with the roof
the picnic site as a node off to the side (would be better as an area but too indistinct for me.)
the peak as a node a little way south

Given all the above I think my changes are acceptable as they are more likely to present the information to the end user rather than have it hidden by one of the features.

If there are two things that are co-located .. then two nodes - one for each would meet the guide? osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element
One feature = one OSM element. Not one OSM element (in this case a single node) representing some 4 features.

Hi,
Way: Hume Highway (574630359) does not connect to Way: Hume Highway (574630359) .. it should.

Hi,
What is this ref=1 on Edith rd and Jenolan Caves Rd? The 'standard' render is showing .. and it triggers me thinking it is hwy 1...
So ref .. from where?

OSM guide is one feature one entry in OSM..
So I have taken Node: Mount Piddington (400898104) and removed from it

the roof - now a new way
the picnic site .. a new node
peak - new now with ele from LPI topo