Hi,
Welcome to OSM!

Roads that access parking areas are tagged highway=service with service=parking_asile.

The Way: 769545712 "intermittent"="yes" "natural"="water" "water"="pond" is shown as a shadow in the imagery .. nothing to distinguish it from other shadows along this creek. The only source stated for this changeset is imagery.

Hi,

There looks to be no change in vegetation between Way: 769545686 "natural"="scrub" to Way: 769545710 and to Way: 769545706 "natural"="wood". So why are they tagged differently?

Thank you for your interest 'freebeer', however I did quote part of the OSM wiki for 'historic'. More quotation?
"It should only be used with aspects of the cultural heritage that are also of historic importance."

I do not think a glasshouse that burnt in the fires is of cultural heritage nor historic importance. The homes burnt down in 1936 are not remembered, nor are the graves of the dead listed as 'historic'. What is remembered are the numbers not the individual things/people. The same will occur with this fire's impact.

The website does not relate to the house. Remove the tag from way/7697112.

No.

The building is named "Breakfast Creek". The OSM key addr:* is for addresses, not for the name of the building.
See
osm.wiki/Addresses

and

osm.wiki/Names

If you insist on using add:housename then please consider retagging the followning from name=* to addr:housename=*

Way: Finanzamt Hameln (100575712)
Way: Haus der Kirche (128960935)
Way: Die Insel (124114921)
Way: Sporthalle Einsiedlerbach (93076007)

and so on .. must be thousands that need retagging!

Historic "key is used to identify features that are of historic interest". See the wiki. The things you have tagged "historic" are not historic.

Building name, not address.

See
osm.wiki/Addresses

and

osm.wiki/Names

If you insist on using add:housename then please consider retagging the followning from name=* to addr:housename=*

Way: Finanzamt Hameln (100575712)
Way: Haus der Kirche (128960935)
Way: Die Insel (124114921)
Way: Sporthalle Einsiedlerbach (93076007)

and so on .. must be thousands that need retagging!

Hi.
In relation/10702861 some of the outer ways have the same tags. This is an error.

See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=143.53417&lat=-5.42012&zoom=15
for more

The house has no website.

The house name is Breakfast Creek.

The address name I do not know, I would suggest you don't know it either.

The Karlsruhe Schema is about addresses. The name of a building, Park or Bridge does not necessarily relate to its address.

I note you are still doing 'burnt' .. and this time 'historic'... there does not appear to be anything historic about them.

Your source state for this change set is "LPI Imagery" If you are using other sources then they should be mentioned in the changeset comments?

In Australia a farm yard does not have a name.

Typically the homestead (building=farm in OSM) will be named. Usually the entire property will have the same name. Unfortunately with property amalgamations some property names are being lost over time, the homesteads fall into disrepair and their names too are lost. This property amalgamations makes it difficult to estimate the present property boundaries as the LPI Base Map shows some past boundaries. Homesteads names can be used however.

Note that the homestead name shown on the LPI Base Map is usually the associated with the old homestead, there maybe a more modern homestead in use. I think the name still goes on the old homestead.

Farm yards should not be used on drive ways, nor on trees that could be fruit trees. See the wiki.

Where you have tagged landuse=vineyard, I believe this should only be the area where vines are grown .. not the area around the house.

The 'errors' are less than 5 metres, not worth the trouble.

The only 'boundary on the ground' is a fence line to the north. I do not see anything else where.
The present OSM boundary looks to encroach on the residential property to the east according to the LPI base Map. Elsewhere the OSM boundary looks to be arbitrary.

In OSM the 'roof' bit is usually mapped as a separate building. This makes it easy to tag it with roof and layer and it can overlap the main building, as some of them do.

Multipolygon relations outer ways cannot share segments .. so the relation you crated for this is technically wrong. See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=139.56220&lat=-32.58145&zoom=17

Niggle;
Umm there is an increased use of the word 'practice' associated with sport. To the extent that the sport=skiing is now described as for 'practice' with no mention of the actual sport it self.

Agree with the smaller area for the sport/practice (where a sport is played is it not also used for practice?).
Not comfortable with military=danger... should have a better tag... sigh.

Difficult.
While I agree with the pitch really being the 'playing area', the rest is not really military...

Ummm ... Archery ranges have the same issue. And there are a number of shooting/archery ranges that are not military. Really a land use ? landuse=?danger/safety? Don't know. For other sports there is usually a 'run off area' too. Motor race tracks usually have some danger area too.

Why is relation/10707379 a relation? There does not look to be a need for that.

Most buildings have roofs. Most buildings are at layer=0 which is the default layer. By using layer=1 it says the building is above something.

To me this looks like a service station - a simple building for one part ... and then a roof at layer=1 over the forecourt. Why do they need to be combined? And why is it building=roof;yes, I think most buildings have one value??

The areas that have been tagged as landuse=meadow may simply be lawns.

The imagery cannot establish the 'land use here.