Note - I don't think the relation should be there - it is a duplication of the tags on the ways... so I may well delete the relation .. eventually

Yes accidental - I needed a way to find duplications of the stream ... the way I did it was to rename one stream and then look for the others... I though I had it corrected.. I think I have it now ... sorry about that. Thanks for the catch!

Hi,
The service road here to backs over itself ...
See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=145.27729&lat=-37.84761&zoom=18&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,
Welcome to OSM!

The service road ... it is going back over itself called 'a duplicated segment' in OSM terms. It only needs to join itself at a point .. not go back to the starting place.
See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=145.15682&lat=-37.81377&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

Still broken.
See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=143.88180&lat=-37.59447&zoom=13&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,
Welcome to OSM!

One of the harder things to do are multipolygon relations.
The relation/15033861 - parking - is not right .. the outer ways 'share segments'. In this instance I would not have a relation ... I'd simply have a single way around the whole thing...
For the error see https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=145.03953&lat=-37.90261&zoom=18&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 have now separated way 1082604070 into 3 ... and these are now separate ways .. they don't cross themselves...

I note that 'street lamp' should be used on a node ... I have add a discussion point on osm.wiki/Talk:Tag:highway%3Dstreet_lamp#Ground_based_lights?

Hi,
"Bus Route 180X: Singleton Station to Maitland Station (Express Service)" is not a name but a description... something far shorter would attrack less 'attention' in the name tag? "Bus 180X Singleton to Maitland" .???

Hi,
The relation for 'South Creek' has many duplicated segments. I have removed these. In addition the relation looks like it is a duplication of the tags already on the ways ... so it is redundant?

No, keep doing what your doing.

<I'll get to the Admin . Boundary problem soon, it will leave in place things that now exist and move the boundaries to new ways/nodes.

Hi,
The creek may be better mapped using the DCS base map as that could be better than using imagery to pick the centre (low point) of the creek, certainly easier to map it from that source.

Thanks for this change to 'farm'. but what is the information source of the 'De Grey Station'???

Some of them are tied to other features e,g, roads, waterways. Separating them is a pain but something I believe should be done.

Hi,

The Wianamatta Creek ... has been mapped to the Administration boundary of the suburbs ... changing it to the actual creek destroys the Admin. Boundaries.

Humm... I'll make a new entry for the Admin boundaries... easier all round, and it may reduce the work load long term....

Hi,
What is the source of the 'locality' node/9982966777 (De Grey Station) ???

Note 'Stations' are usually farms of some description - so they do have people there. 'Localities' in OSM terms have no people..

Hi,
Some of these phones are 'under ground' - as are the roads they are associtated with. In OSM this 'under ground' atribute is tagged using the key layer, you will find it on the associated roads and the phones should have the same value .. I thing that is mostly 'layer=-1'. I have done 2 of them under the new Art Gallery construction.

Hi,
Looks to me like in modifying the river this has made the tree area cross itself ...
See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=116.06308&lat=-33.93491&zoom=16&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

You should fix this ...

Ok. Now it is one simple way. ( In JOSM that I use the command would be 'Combine' and that would need the two ways to be touching at one or two nodes, not overlapping one another),

As a 1 member relation .. the tags can be placed on the way and the relation deleted.. I have done this as it is far simpler.
See way/306701792

Hi
The sign a the top saying 'Lorna Pass' points to the pass .. it is not the name of this rack...

Hi,

Welcome OSM!

Multipolygon relations are difficult. In OSM the outer ways are not allowed to share segments. For the apron here I's simply make the two ways into one simple closed way thus no need for a relation.
Left me know if that does not make sense.