Bridges are usually layer=1 so they go over a water way...

Hi,

Why do you have duplicated segments? This is the third one I have come accross of yours...

See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=151.02114&lat=-33.73112&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

Parking relation deleted. Parking tags on ways... KISS

Hi,
relation/17953279 (marsh) has problems ...
See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=144.99086&lat=-37.64228&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

The outer ways cannot share segments with inner ways ... Zoom in on the Esri imagery and it looks like the marsh area is larger. In bing it looks like a construction zone...

Routes entered by this changeset;

relation/6969948

relation/6969949

The proposal osm.wiki/Proposal:Power_routing_proposal goes into why 'route=power' is not a good idea.

No communication - yet altered back to operational 2 months ago .. while still not operational.. Poor behavior.

Quotes from OSM wiki on bay..

Bays are frequently mapped as nodes, and rarely as areas.

Large bays can be mapped as areas but the resulting multipolygon relations will often be extremely large and complex so mapping with nodes is preferable

End quotes...
Some 56,450 mapped as nodes .. some 3,563 mapped as ways (assume fjords) and some 20,377 as relations. So a little over 70% are mapped as nodes, I'd think that is fairly 'frequent'?

I note that neither of the 2 relations given as example look to render while this does render
node/3963720669

Would you care to explain whey the bay node has been deleted and moved to a relation? I note the accepted practice in OSM is to have the bay represented by a node..

1) I have not examined the changeset so cannot say what else it may have damaged.
2) The accepted practice is to have bays as nodes. The changeset remove the node and replaced it with a relation .. a relation that excludes various islands that maybe incudes in the bay...

The reversion simply restores both the borken relation and the bay back to a node.

Hi,
Have you read natural=bay?uselang=en ???

Hi,
The Watreloo Rd bicycle route ... there does not appear to be any signs (a display of the name on a public notice along the route) . Further some of the 'cycleway' is incorrect in that there is no bicycle permission evident in some parts...

Following personal survey by bicycle I have deleted the relation and corrected some of the 'cycleways' to footpaths.

How many of these bicyle routes fail the required 'named or numbered or otherwise signed routes'? See osm.wiki/Cycle_routes

Not a 'power line' person but I came across this 'route' .. was interested but could not reconcile my concept of 'route' with power lines.

The KTS SBY are abbreviations ... be nice to know if there were some way of confirming the ref values given. But this is a distraction from the 'route' issue.

I have remove some of the bicycle=designated as there is no on the ground indication. Possibly a gov map may make the claim but that may not have been implemented...

Have a read of osm.wiki/Proposal:Power_routing_proposal

Hi,
Multipolygon relation outer ways cannot share segments.
This particular relation is not required .. further the ways should be combined into one way and even combined with way/1304201064 ... as both tree areas are adjacent with one another..

See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=115.99612&lat=-31.89578&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. You are very valuable as a local contributor getting stuff 'us' remote contributors cannot see.

However there are 2 errors from this changeset that I have corrected. It is ok, we all make errors, more frequently when we start out. So;
The library building is not part of the bus route, So I have removed it from that relation. The library building is also part of the uni and is already within the boundaries of that relation so it does not need to be listed there, so I that removed it from there too.

Keep mapping, don't fear the errors, some will be picked up and fixed rapidly.. others may take some time to be found.

The name tag is for the name only .. not descriptions.
e.g. name=barn already correctly tagged building-barn.

Read osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

What are you trying to do???

These ways should not be named!

Why???

This makes no difference, none. Why do it?

The way should not be named!

Hi,
You change the role of a way in a multipolygon relation from 'outer' to 'inner' ... make no sense as it is the outside edge of the trees.

The comment 'boundary line reversed ' is also puzzling as the direction of a boundary line makes no difference to anything???

The relation role has been corrected.