Deleted this way.
Covers farm land, residential areas, water, wetlands ... etc.

Validator warnings in JOSM are merely an indicator that something might be wrong – but the validator may very well be mistaken.

In the case of land cover overlapping land use it is perfectly valid to have them overlap! Take all the validator warnings as just that an indication that something MAY be wrong and it should be checked. The validator in this case is mistaken.

Why is the validator not more precise? Because of all the exceptions! Example.

Overlapping of land cover with another land cover is an error.

Overlapping of a land cover with another land use is fine, unless the land use includes a surface tag (and is therefore both a land use and a land cover).

And so on...

Hi,

The area you have tagged as landuse=forest ... why is it all a land use? Why not simply tag it as trees (natural=wood)?

In any case the area contains various holes where there are no trees, so I have retagged it as a relation, natural=wood with various inners.

Hi,
Welcome to OSM.

The relationship you added for 15 Golden Wattle Street is incorrect. Multipolygon relations outer ways cannot share segments.
I think the rear square is a separate building, possibly a simple roof over a deck? In any event I have tagged the main building as the house and the smaller square as a simple building=yes.
Hope that helps.

I think you know far more about the area than me. So i think it is up to you to decide what to do.

Your definition of a riverbank says there is no vegetation growing in it. Yet this river bank has vegetation between the riverbanks...

The creek bank looks to be that when the creek is in flood... rather infrequent and deceptive mapping for Australia.

Some areas do overlap.
Your validator is being too pedantic. Ignore it, the validator can be wrong. Example trees can over lap into residential backyards thus overlap a 'landuse=residential'.

If you think the entry I made for landuse=commercial is worse than some other entry .. modify it so it is better. Or modify the other entry .. or both entries.

Hi,
This changeset has made the National park boundary wrong.

The cahngeseet comment does not tell me what you are trying to do.

Please read osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

This changeset has been reverted.

You should not use OSM for testing... I have reverted this edit.

This road is not connected to anything. It does not appear in any imagery that I have access to.
This looks fictional to me.

Hi,
Wickman Road, that you added, looks to be a track added by a remote mapper a little to the north?

Yep.
Got to be careful with those auto things.
Looks to be displaying now...

Ok, just looking at 'showground' in taginfo altered me to there use in the UK (amenity=showground some ~ 5 uses). It is a bit of a wasted resource, here they do get used. Some even provide camping when not used for other things.

Hi.

The way crosses itself. that is not good.
I would do this as 2 separate buildings... one way for each building. Possibly touching if there walls meet.

See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=145.70502&lat=-37.19333&zoom=18

Hi,

In Australia these 'Showgrounds' are used for recreation between shows. So the tags used are landuse=recreation_ground (as that is the majority of the time) with recreation_ground=showground.

I believe the landuse=grass is not appropriate .. it should be surface=grass. I think this has been done 'for the render'.

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.