Reverted.

Reverted.
Hi,
Welcome to OSM. Unfortunately this and your next changeset broke the boundary for HMAS Albatross and so were reverted.

railway=abandoned means the rail line is still there, it does not mean razed, nor does it say anything about a platform. I do wish that railway=disused/abandoned were changed to disused:railway=rail or abandoned:railway=rail so it easier to understand what it meant.

Looking at the DCS imagery for Links Rd there is a track of the railway line crossing .. but either side of the road .. gone. Looking at the other OSM available imagery also does not show any remains.

Form the OSM wiki
abandoned:*=* Still visible but fallen into serious disrepair and which could only be put back into operation with considerable effort.

razed:*=*
Not existing any more because of active removal, for fully dismantled tracks and trackbed (overbuilt state)

----------------
Present sate? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mbt-S-fzTQ
8.25 - Christie street over built of railway. = razed.

8.57 Dundel Station - no sign of tracks. Platform could be mapped .. as ruins:railway=platform .. go ahead.
9.30? Embankment .. no longer used for transport so man_made=embankment.?
9.45 no sign of railway line near Forester Rd.

10.02 Links Rd crossing - overbuilt -= razed. I cannot see any sign of rail tracks there.

On wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ropes_Creek_railway_line#Today
"all track and overhead wiring beyond Christie St. has been removed. "

Very good. Thanks.

No interest in fixing it? I'll delete it then?

I have now summarised the tagging list discussions and entered text to explain the purpose of mapping non existent features in OSM on the wiki page osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix#Stages_of_decay

Note the words "Renders cannot rely on OSM preserving physically vanished history. "

Before this changeset JOSM validator reports a "Warning; way unclosed". Now JOSM validator says "Error: way contains segment twice, Warning: self intersecting way". OSMinspector says there is a duplicate segment in the way. See

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=151.08789&lat=-32.75460&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

Hi,
The parking relation/14959084 is not correct.
There is no need to use a relation here ... nor in the past changeset/120726433 parking relation/14119374. As an example I have deleted relation/14119374 and made those parking areas as simple closed ways. Please consider doing something similar with relation/14959084.

Hi,
Way: A Friend's Place 43 (an eco friendly retreat) (1115404643) ... umm there is only a 'name' some sort of accommodation... web search ...
According to https://afriends.place/ a camp site.. I have retagged it to that.

Ok,
Example (might be more than one.. I have done some repair work here in 'Central' so I'm not too worried by it .. but something to watch out for)
Way: 229029020 This changeset (dated 6/26/19) add the tags for it to be a platform.

Pre-existing Relation: Platform 8 (6015394) established 2/29/16 already tagged as a platform. Thus a duplication.

Simply:

Multipolygon relations out ways cannot can not share segments.

Relation deleted again.

And another one

relation/14929799

See changeset/129312998 ...

Not fixed. Still wrong.

See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=144.90381&lat=-38.35660&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 same error as before. Are you even getting these messages?

Outer ways of multipoygons can not share segments!

Not the only place the OSM wiki is confusing!

My 'best' diary entry .. I think ...
@Warin61/diary/45106

Hi,
Welcome to OSM!

A couple of hints?
The multipolygon relation/14934548 (see relation/14934548#map=18/-33.73050/150.98311+ outer ways share segments - they over lap one another, this is an error. Looking at the imagery it does not look like they connect at all .. so 2 simple closed ways would do, no relation required. If they did touch along that segment then .. why have the segment at all? A simple single closed way around the whole single building would do - again no relation required.

Are you local to this building? Do you know if they are joined? In any case I leave you to fix this error.

Other than ferries and pleasure craft there would be no major sea going traffic in this area... darling harbour is no longer a 'working wharf' area.
HMS Belfast renders well on https://map.openseamap.org/?zoom=17&lat=-36.83445&lon=174.79524&layers=BFTFFFFFFTF0TFFFFFFFFF ... don't think anyone would run it to it .. much like a pier. No ferries berth on HMS Belfast, nor on the Australian National Maritime Marine Museum ships.

relation/14877744 diamond creek res - error 'shares segments'... just like the above.

I'll leave it a week and see if you have made any attempt at fixing it.

My understanding of the word 'hulk' looks to be 'different' from others .. :(

However .. I looked at London HMS Belfast and used the same tags they use - more mappers in London ..so that should be 'better'?

I have retagged it along the same lines as HMS Belfast in London, thinking there are far more people looking at those tags.
I would think that it would go into dry dock occasionally for hull maintenance. Probably Garden Island. Onslow .. would have gone to Co-dock. Endeavour dose the occasional jaunt.