Corrected.
Also remove swamp. Left note with original mapper some time ago and had no response. The LPI base map does not show swamp. Probably an area subjected to flooding.

Missed the National Park being tagged with natural=wood. Removed tag.

I would suggest the residential area should be reduced. I am not the author of this area.

A cemetery can have trees .. and still be a cemetery.

One is land use, the other land cover.

If you care to look at the imagery .. you can see trees.

If you care to look at the LPI Base Map you can see the area zoned for cemetery.

What requires correction?

The above is for relation/10591122. I imaging similar comments may be made for the other relations.

Imagery shows land cover not land use. Sometimes the land use can be estimated from the land cover and local knowledge. In this case the land cover is mixed. Even where it is not mixed I cannot tell what the land is used for.
I would leave it blank for landuse, the LPI Base Map detail the property extent and most of it is tree covered. As for land cover ... good luck determining if the 'trees' are trees or shrubs or heath...

I would suggest it is you who wants to discuss these areas, so you should initiate the discussions.

Note: When I cannot determine what something is .. I do not enter it in OSM, I leave it blank rather than 'colour it in' with something that may not be correct.

There are many much larger areas on the map that are blank. Your local area may be fully mapped, congratulations! However other parts of the world do not have the local mappers to fully map these area, we do the best we can but cannot perform miracles. I would rather be spending my time mapping many 10's of square kilometers of trees than arguing with you about less than 1 square kilometer of area. But you would then use that to map other areas .. with what you think might be there base on imagery alone with no local knowledge.

I would hope an organizer would have more knowledge.
Use a local sand box.
Or add real data, there is enough of that missing to keep most busy. Some of the homesteads have names - see the LPI Base Map.

Error.

A multipolygon must form a closed area using the members it has.

These 2 relations could be combined into one relation, they would then form a closed area. However - the connection between the two does not look to have parking .. so that area could be excluded. In any case .. the relations need fixing.

You do NOT load tests to OSM!

When does an area of trees, shrubs and grass become tagged in OSM as trees? When the majority of the area is tree covered? I put it to you that the same applied to scrub. If the area is mostly low growing plants than tagging it as scrub is not correct, heath or grassland could be better.
However, what evidence do you have that the area is one thing rather than another??? I don't think the imagery is not good enough to determine if it is grassland or heath. But I certainly don't think that the area could be called scrub.

If we cannot reach agreement then I would suggest a wider audience be consulted. That audience should be Australian as the area is in Australia and they should have better local knowledge.

Hi,
Suburban boundary data cannot come from imagery. What is the source of this information?

The name of the lake cannot come from imagery. What is the source of this information?

It should not be tagged as scrub if it is not scrub. Note that the page for shrub goes on to say "This tag should not be used for:
areas dominated by low growing dwarf scrubs - use natural=heath instead."

I removed tagging of an area that is not what was tagged. I will not tag an area with something I have doubts about what is there. I don't think the imagery is good enough to determine what is there. I have traveled through this area yet I am not certain of what is there. Can you have more certainty about what is there? You seem convinced it is 'scrub'. I doubt that very much.

The white areas are not scrub - not tall enough. They could be 'heath' or 'grass'. Take a look at the imagery. Note there will always be blank areas on the map. There is a lot to do and those areas are simply too small to bother with! There are hundreds if not thousands of square kilometers to map .. all with lots of white area.

In haste I took you reference to SIX maps to mean you used their maps ...In the area that you mapped with scrub and wood/forest the LPI Topo map only has one shade of green ... using JOSM 15690. Arr using gama and colourfulness I can get some variation .. but it is not good in terms of resolution.
Looking at the imagery ... the difference is not there for some of it and other patches show some variation - but not where it was mapped. In addition the imagery has more detail than the topo for the trees (and power lines). I think it should be left for a ground survey for more detail.

We do NOT have permission to use SIX maps. Cease using that source as it is a copyright violation. Anything you added from that source should be deleted.

The topo map OSM has permission to use does not have that detail.

--------------------
I did not make the wikipage osm.wiki/Mapping_Landuse_in_Australia. I will raise it on the Australian mail list and see what they say.. the tagging guidelines has no info on mapping landuse. The pages are not linked.. I think there has been no Australian input into that landuse page...

I have now added a large area of trees - this replaces the smaller area you added. I have left the 'burnt' relation ... but like lots of other things.. it is not something that OSM maps. Other things OSM does not map? Flood prone areas, areas of land mines, if a shop sells bread or not ... lots of things.

Hey,
OSM has several quality assurance tools, I use them to check my work and happened across this as it is an 'error'. My 'errors' are usually much larger and more horrific... because some of the things I do are larger in area.
I'll make a few changes today and you should then examine it! I have never been there so I can only estimate what there is from the imagery available. You are the expert on what is there, not I.

I don't know. I don't usually use the topo map, just the imagery. I'll have to think on it. Scrub to me are low growing plants <3m height , that is not necessarily 'woodland'.

I am revising the area as the local National Park carries the natural=wood tag and that is wrong - the trees do not start and end at the National Park boundaries.

In Australia the landuse=forest tends to be used for areas where trees are harvested for timber, rather than just the presence of trees.

Mapping 'meadow', well I could not do that without more information ... an area of grass looks the same if it is used for pasture or not.

hI,

There is no difference between the area identified as scrub -relation 10591122 and landuse=forest relation/763346427. See the LPI Imagery..

Hi,

The relation with "landuse=forest;scrub;meadow" is not appropriate.

1) landuse can only have one value, not more than one.

2) the area does not carry that name.

3) OSM does not map burnt areas.

Please delete this information

And cease adding burnt areas.