Wait a while for the trees?
Some places are still 'flooded' from some coding error.

I think 'we' all try to make the map better. There certainly is a lot of it that can be improved. And few mappers ...

Humm ..

You are adding 'scrub' and rock etc. Good. An increase in detail.

Between the scrub and rock? Tundra?

Finish off the additions.

Then Consider the tree edges, should have more detail here .. but time constraints prevented me entering it. Relation: 5449093 is the one.

Once those are tidy .. or you run out of time. then consider the trundra relation. The trees and scrub wold probably from the outers, and inners would be the rocks etc.

See how you go. It will not be easy.

Relation: 5985104 is now broken.

See the purple dots in https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=148.33928&lat=-36.17368&zoom=9

Basically some ways have had nodes removed, shortening them so they no longer connect together to form a closed outer way for the relation. If there are ways that join they have not been included in the relation.

When I introduced the tundra cover .. all of this area was mapped as 'trees'.

What, if anything, is between the tree area and the tundra area?

History:
The first estimation of the tundra area was done using the snow covered area, this was quick and got most of the area that was not trees out of the mapped tree area. Refining it can be done. And it can be done without braking the relations...

To work on the tree line in this area there are 2 relations required.

Relation: 5985104
and
Relation: 5449093

and possibly other relations too.

Recommend using one only imagery, and the best resolution is from the LPI Imagery in this area.

The change set comment says "treeline" yet the relation is not for trees, some of the ways are used for the tree line .. but the relation that is being changed is not for the trees.

The changes made .. possibly from other changesets (12 of themin all) have broken relation/5985104 (land cover = tundra).

Hi
This was left open - not a closed area. I have closed it. But it needs some time spent on it to detail where there are trees and where there are no trees.

Hi
Botany St still looks to be under construction, you changed it from highway=construction to highway=residential leaving construction=residential .. which is confusing.

So what is it?

Hi,
When you change highway=proposed to something else the proposed=* tag should be removed. Other wise it is confusing, is it still proposed, or is it finished???

Hi,
Welcome to OSM!

The building you have entered are not 'square' - ie composed of right angled corners. JOSM has a tool - "Orthogonal". When an object is highlighted press the 'Q' key and that should make all the corners right angled.. makes things look good.

You should make changeset comments - these help when you look back at your work - says what you did. I also say where I did it.. as I roam a bit. See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments
And see @Warin61/history

The LPI Base Map will help separate out buildings too. The best imagery looks to be the LPI Imagery .. are you using that? Not as fuzzy as the others.

Hi again

Same problem ... A multiplogon cannot have outers that share ways...

See

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=137.54620&lat=-33.02953&zoom=16

and

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=137.57731&lat=-33.03450&zoom=16

Hi,
These are sports fields.
So best to tag leisure=pitch as it was before. If you want to signify that the surface is grass then the tag surface=grass could be ued, not landuse=grass overriding the previous leisure tag. In addition the sport=* can be used to signify the actual sport/s played there.

I have changed this and added some other sports details in this area.

Hi,

Multipolygon relations should not have outers that touch.

The multipolygon relation/9729894, residential area has 2 ways .. and they touch. In fact this does not need to be a multipolygon relation at all. Add the tags landuse=residential to each of the 2 ways, and delete the relation. Job done.

Hi,

The relation Tudor Park (1350728, v3) defines - the boundary of the park (role outer) and excludes anything with the role 'inner' from the park.

I do note that you have followed the previous practice here.

So I have 'fixed' this. I have taken the outer ways, combined them and copied the tags across from the relation to that way, then deleted the relation. I think you will find that works and is much simpler to map (and for map makers to render).

Hi,
Welcome to OSM!

I would think that the dog area is park of the park? In fact I think most of the things presently excluded, like the sports pitch, parking area, are all part of the park.

Hi,
way/688813424 self intersects. Fixed... but then

Way: 688813418 overlays Way: 688813420 .. and so on.

Don't do that. Not fixing those.

Hi,
way/696249440 - highway=path is self intercepting.
See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=147.21387&lat=-31.88315&zoom=6

It also does not connect to anything.

From here ... I can see the trees. I cannot see the protected area boundary.

Hi,

Back here you add the tag landuse=conservation and later changed that to boundard protected area for the relation/1555083.
It is tagged natural=tree before this and remains with this tag.

I think this multipolygon is trees. Any protected area would include the water areas - that are excluded by the trees?

Think you need another multipolygon to tag the protected area?