Strange! It did show as an 'outer' see relation/6836233/history ...
Arr . I changed it by accident in version 6 on 30/9/22 when I add some 9 more members.. I must have changed it to meet the validator upload messages .. forgetting I had sent you the message. Apologies.

Thanks Nev .. re entered. It maybe a very small field within the cricket circle in the bing imagery... but too hard to make it out.

Hi,
I don't see AFL at Karragullen Oval, I have removed it (and added an r to the name). I did a google to see if I could find it but no luck there. Did you mean rugby? There is some trace that could be rugby on bing.

This and other edits have broken train route relations.

Learn how not to break the relations by fixing the many that you have broken!

I have set this to a site relation.

This avoids the error of shared segments in a multipolygon relation outer ways. Been ~2 months since the error was noted.

Hi,

An error in the relation 6836233 - wood. Way: Lake Elizabeth (198991852) should have the role 'inner' inside the relation.

I'll let you fix it so you can examine it.

Keep mapping, humans make errors and I think we all learn best by fixing our own mistakes.

Hi,

I have changed some boundaries of adjacent parks to what I think is more correct DCS Base Map boundaries.. approximately.
Ones of concern are
Way: Princes Park (203021850) and Way: Norford Park (186995446). See what you think ...

I have used JOSM validator to further check this changeset:

Highways crossing barrier fences ... 4 in this changeset but others also evident from past entries. These need to have the barriers removed from the highway .. or some gated entry provided. Barrier Way: 1096276941, Way: 1096276939 and Way: 1096276960.

Highway Way: 1096276958 connected to building, Way: 1096276959

Past messages about errors have been ignored, this one will probably be the same?

See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=115.99623&lat=-32.03919&zoom=19&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways

The building way self intersects ... you should fix this.

Note: The iD reported warnings of "crossing highway/waterway" and "impossible one way highway" are worth investigating.

Err ... 'australian_football' ... looks like rugby to me. Altered.

Hi,

There has been some dragging of at least 2 nodes by this changeset...

node/7429152706 dragged south east, makes build way cross it self
node/6682975699 dragged north west, makes a badly mapped tree cross itself. The badly mapped tree has been done by a mapper in 2019 and they only have some 20 edits...

Bit mystified as to why... looks like the nodes were changed without realizing they were 'inuse'???

I have left them alone so you can view them ... See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=145.10137&lat=-37.77889&zoom=14&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways

Hi
The building multipolygon relation/14591280 is not correct.

See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=149.10084&lat=-35.22185&zoom=17&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways

I would suggest you delete the relation and place tag 'building=residential' on the remaining 3 ways. I'll leave it to you to correct the situation?

Arr
Got it from council web site
Thanks - don't bother to respond. :)

Hi,

The relation 'Cliff Oval' says both pitches have this name. Looking at the base map .. that would seem to indicate only the northern one has that name?
Thoughts?

Hi,
Hi,
The JOSM validator would have informed you that this way/1093226716 crosses itself. That should be fixed before you upload it.

See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=147.34993&lat=-35.10750&zoom=19&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways for a QA tool that also identifies it as a problem.

Your source is not specific, imagery with the best resolution and positional accuracy in this are is the DCS NSW Imagery.

Please pay attention to those JOSM validator errors and warnings, they help to improve mapping.

I shall leave this for you to fix.

Hi,
Building Way: 344030848 looks to be demolished in Maxar imagery. Are you certain it is still here?

Observable from imagery:
Cricket is played here, the wear between the wickets is clear.

I and others in the past have mapped the rectangular wear into OSM. Most of us now recognise that this in not a good representation and it is a better representation to place a circle centred on the wear.
Cricket is not only local to this area, taking a 'local' approach to mapping cricket I don't think would be helpfull,
Do you have a solution - other than 'don't map it'?

Hi,
The JOSM validator would have informed you that this way/1092998883 crosses itself. That should be fixed before you upload it.

See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=147.37034&lat=-35.11776&zoom=19&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways for a QA tool that also identifies it as a problem.

The DCS imagery has better resolution that bing and it looks to like that area simply shows a roof shadow rather than a building gap.

Please pay attention to those JOSM validator errors and warnings, they help to improve mapping.

I shall leave this for you to fix.

The mapper has expressed views regarding this on an unrelated changeset of mine - Changeset: 124324306.
I quote
"Combine this with your pattern of remote mapping in an area - again, based on what a validator says are the "rules";"

Not only a validator but also the OSM wiki - both of these quoted above.

" deleting contibutions, and abrasive commentary... well that's not helping the local map consumers or contributors either."

I have in the past corrected your entries. However we all learn best by correcting our own errors. Your practice of ignoring comments while you continue to map ... and then expecting corrections to be made by others ... thank you, but no. You are on the ground ... and best placed to detail the building... looks like a roof down the centre?

In any case ... do not use a multipolygon relation where the outer ways are not disjointed, for reference see the wiki linked above.