Hi.
The changest comment does not look like it relates to the actual changes?

I have split the building relation in to 2 relations as they look like 2 separate buildings that touch. A single multipolygon relation outer ways cannot share segments and that was a fault with the single relation.

Hi,

What the DCS Base Map shows is the river bank .... What the imagery shows is that the river is 'intermittent'. I don't think 'wetland' is what is here.

Between No 25 and 19 there looks to be access to nos 26 to 31, these may never be built? In imagery there is a start of a road between 19 and 25 .. This could be public.
The path as mapped intrudes on to both 19 and 25, possibly the path could be changed to not intrude? @ boroli thoughts?

I would think the property boundaries of the DCS Base Map (Six Maps for nonOSM use) would be reasonably definitive. However it is not clear to me who would be 'responsible' for land between the park and those street properties. Possibly local council. I would be reluctant to tag most of it as 'public' as that leads to people assuming they can walk through the 'little bit at the end' (the true private bit) when they should not.
However I await GreplusLy5525Buenavista response as it could be more detailed.

Hi,
It was tagged as building=yes, now it is tagged as landuse=religious.

Firstly landuse=religious is now tagged on the outer way encompassing the whole site - this is normal practice in OSM as everything inside that boundary is used to support a religion.
See
landuse=religious
and
way/1163625850

Secondly the thing is a building. So tagging it building=* is ground truth. I did a web search that suggest the building could be a 'gurdwara'? Checking on taginfo there are 7 of these used around the world. I would suggest building=gurdwara and then making an OSM wiki page for them. By making an OSM wiki page you increase the possibility of people using it.

Hi,

Welcome to OSM.

The relation/15740081, landuse=religious, ... does not make sense...

It has 2 ways .. both with the role 'inner' meaning they are inside an 'outer' and are excluded from the 'landuse=religious'...
What I have done -
On the outside way place the tags landuse=religious, religion=sikh and then deleted 3 relations ... all of them related to this area and its landuse. Ths keeps things simple.

I did retag the building as a church... but it might be better as a temple???

Use the OSM wiki to help in understanding things ... e.g. amenity=place_of_worship

Hi,
Source 'page could not be found' ???

way/220688912 - a sports pitch, you added sport = football ... AFL? Rugby? Soccer? Which 'football'?

No response - deleted.

Arr.. think I have it now - someone added some nodes? And at least moved them .. see
changeset/134960623

Hi,
way/459973943 crosses it self.

Needs to be fixed ... See way/459973943

I think you moved some nodes for this platform and that is causing this issue.

Hi,
way/459973943 crosses it self.

Needs to be fixed ... See way/459973943

I think this is caused by the addition of some extra nodes to this way...

Hi,

Fixme are "fixme=" something.. not amenity=fixme... Is this an 'Every Door' issue?

Anyway .. node/10307752354 shop Bed Bath N Table would be better entered as shop=yes brand=Bed Bath N Table. If you wnat you could get into the shop detail by looking on th eOSM wiki shop=*

I have changed this as above

See amenity=public_bookcase for a street public library... if that is what node/10035839623 is.

Hi
Way 459973943 crosses it self.

Needs to be fixed ... See way/459973943

relation/15675556 is in error - touching outer ways. Further they don't look like the claimed source - bing imagery

Hi,
way/1161718396 is on error...
See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=115.06417&lat=-33.55837&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

Looks like these are 2 separate buildings - so should be 2 separate ways.

Side note: The changeset comment is not very helpful. Take a look at osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Hi,
Way is part of relation/2816025 .. both are tagged for pedestrians... i.e. duplication. I have removed the duplication.

Relation 15518947 deleted...
Not so certain that this is water .. look at the mapbox imagery.

I have deleted the relation. Make a new relation?

Deleted relation. Bye.