I go for simpler, much easier to understand. I have also separated the trees from the reserve, again - simpler.

Hi,

Welcome to OSM!

Previous mappers have not mapped the smaller middle bit near the pier as part of the reserve. Is it part of the reserve?

I have made the relation into a simple single closed way, this includes the middle bit.
And I have separated the tree areas from the nature reserve.

Oh, you could combine the outer ways into one way and remove the relation (if there are no inners).

Exception: if there are over 2,000 nodes, then make it as serparate ways. Multipolygon relations should also have less than 300 members... sometimes these exceptions need to be broken, but in general...

Segments cannot be shared when they are members of the same multipolygon relation.

Segments can be shared ... between;
2 (or more) separate ways
2 separate multiplication relations

-------------------
Do you mean tags or names?

If things are common to the outer ways of a multipolygon relation then those things should be on/in hte relation. Only put things that are different between the outer ways on the outer ways.

Your changeset comments .. are not good.

What have you been trying to do? Describe that.

Read osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

---------------------------
I read you have been adding 'Roman Road' ... in places where it no longer exists? If so you might add that to Open Historical Map... where historical things are welcome. Unfortunately I could not find these easily from you changeset comments.

Same problem on relation Andersons Inlet (12596998, v1) - shared segments. Also the 'water=yes;river' cannot be both yes and river .. chose one or the other.

These roads are of a lower level than West Parade... so they should remain as 'unclassified'.

See the DCS Base Map for more comparison of road classifications.

It is fine, I only picked it up are there was an error in the forming of the relation - that I fixed. I just wanted to warn you of that change I made so you don't think it just 'disappeared'.

The DCS Base Map has wetlands in it too - handy so you can see that bit of the river bank is 'swampy' before hand.

Myself - I add data to OSM well before a trip so the information I can get is in OSM and rendered (OSMand does a monthly update .. so 2 months before I should finish my OSM edits). After the trip I can add any details I want.

As far as 'overseeing you edits' .. ha. Too much to do, like getting ready for my next trip. Enjoy yours.

A simple area ... use a closed way.

Separate areas that share segments?;

Use a simple way that includes all and tag that with the common information to all the included things. Then a way on each included thing this the tags that are different from the common tags.

Or possibly a site relation?

However for this situation;

Brake the each way into 2 ways at the place where the segments are shared. You now have 4 ways .. 2 of the ways over lap one another. Delete these overlapping ways. You now have 2 ways that connect at node, that do not overlap and form a continuous loop. These should still be in the relation and should be ok.

Hi,
Road segment does not link in with the OSM data on the FRV Boundary .. deleted from the relation.

Hi
Multipologon relation outer ways cannot share segments.

See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=174.81242&lat=-41.23216&zoom=18

Hi,
Relation Clybucca Creek (12596997) is redundant as the member ways already contain the tags of the relation. I have deleted this relation.

HI,
Problem with way/876017444

see https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=151.68127&lat=-30.52629&zoom=18

The relation 'Clybucca Creek' has part of the Maclay Rv, Anderson Inlet, Spencers Ck, Maclay Arm ... so I have deleted the name from the relation.

The DCS Base Map is better detailed than the topo map.

Ok ...
I'll put it into OMH then. Could be a cool place to visit in hot weather.

Hi
These embankments look to be the wrong way around .. the low ground in on the other side.

Look at the DCS topographic map for reference.

Hi,

I've been looking at tagging, local to me, an arboretum. And I came across this as one of the earlier ones. Looks like it still is, combined with the cemetery. You have it tagged as a nature reserve... would arboretum not be more specific and appropriate?

Now 2 Munday Swamp with tags leisure=park

way/877745804

relation/12531083

Delete one?

Name is for name only.
See osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

Areas of trees are better tagged 'natural=wood'. The key 'landuse' is for the human use of the land, not for what is there ... with the one exception of 'grass'.