Hi,
Welcome to OSM. Some comments?

Moving node/2616016520 has distorted the cemetery - not good. I have fixed this but you might check your other changes?

Framland does not extend to the center of the road?
Again relations - inners should not cross nor share ways with outers.

node/5105512962 - has tag 'ip=ip66' .. what doe that mean? Is it a reference?

Hi,
relation/7580789 - farmland;
... has
4 members with the role 'outer'. As 3 of these are within one there is no need for these 3.
Has at least one member with the role inner that shares a segment with the role outer - this is not allowed. See osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon#Overlapping.2C_unclosed_member_ways_belonging_to_the_same_role

Hi,
The relation/7570358 (residential) has 2 outer ways that coincide. That is not allowed - I have combined them into a simple way

Hi,
relation/7560478 - for your aerial imagery reference... ?

1) What aerial reference? Copyright free? Or specific permission given?

2) You could keep these off the data base by storing them locally as a JOSM layer ...

3) They generate error indication on OSM inspector ... thus my attention. There are no similar things in Australia .. and possibly anywhere else.

Hi,
Not well done every where...
Ways 208505436 361107918 422926793 432708439 show up in OSMinspector .with elf intersections. There maybe others of this changeset that need looking at. I have done one, but leave the rest so you can see what has occurred.

Opps !!!
Thanks.

Hi,
The building (way521899882) that you have added ... you have included in relation Elizabeth Hills (5538037). There is no need to include it separately as it is already surrounded, and therefore included, by this relation.

Hi,
The 'rules' are that multipolygons outer ways cannot touch their inner ways. So these buildings multipolygons generate error messages. Looking at them closely in bing I see that the corners don't quite touch, so I have made them into simple ways. See what you think.

Done. I have added highway pedestrian to the forecourt graveled area this morning.

And I wish you the very best of luck with it!

It is a mess. Err still. Probably matches the process that take place inside it! :)

I have changed relation/7112517 from building to a site - as it is a collection of buildings.

I have made some 'buildings' into building:part as they are inside other buildings ... so should be part of them?

I have tried to make the forecourt match the building outline - so they don't cross one another.

This has reduced the reported errors down somewhat. But it really needs work on the spot.

Coastlines and rivers change over time. And so too do some roads. I'd think a legal boundary that uses a feature will specify a date? Or maybe the date is taken from when the document was made?
By separating an admin boundary from other things in OSM it allows these other things to be altered by mappers without effecting the admin boundaries. People do tweak things - particularly rivers, roads and coastlines to match what they think it should be. If the admin boundary is attached then that may be moved inappropriately.

As for the LPI .. I'd refer to http://www.lpi.nsw.gov.au/land_titles I think these are as close to the legal definition that OSM will get.

Did not mean to put you off Nhadaya. But this is the second instance I found of this kind of thing occurring .. so I would like to know how you came to tag them as landuse=residential. That may help avoid further confusion?

Hi,
When you do a relationship .. don't put the same tags on the ways making up the relationship.

In this case you have the tags leisure=track and sport=horse_racing on all the ways in the relationship and on the relationship itself. In this case the tags are only needed on the relationship.

Secondly ... the ways ..
One outer - encompass the whole thing - you did this correctly.

One inner ... not quite right

One that has no role ...

There are 2 inners ... I have corrected this .. please take a look and see what I have done?

The relation/7516802 has overlapping ways. And it looks like other relationships too use these overlapping ways.

Would it not be simpler to revert the relevant changeset? .

I'll revert this one and see what it was like before you changed it.

Ok .. done. Outline is doubled up - fixed. There are numerous warnings in this area - e.g Relation: 3180302 "building:levels"="3.8" should be either an integer value or a .5 value. This is your doing - either chose 3 (what it was before you changed it) or 3.5 or 4 ... not 3.8!

Hi,
Relation 7504613 - Abo station ... not evident in LPI imagery ... umm
Arr there it is - Digital Globe Standard...
OSMinspector says 'touching rings' .. as this is roof outlines I'll just reduce the footprint so they don't quite touch.

Hi
You have way/479420783 tagged as industrial power plant yet the imagery shows a parking lot. You have that tagged on Way: 71190511. So what it is? If the parking lot is on top of the power plant then use the layer tag to indicate it?

No need for apologies. Some, at least, is my fault! Much easier over a beer.

What I meant was if the relationship is deleted leaving simple ways, then the remaining way/s get the relevant tags from the old relationship.

If the wood is part of the park then it gets included in the park - it would not be an inner (inners are excluded from the park). The playground is part of the park? So it is not an inner in the parks relationship.

As it now appears - the wood in not part of the park. The park boundaries could exclude the wood so you would not need to have the wood mentioned in the relationship.

In a relation ;

An outer way cannot touch nor cross any other way in the relation.

An inner way can touch another inner way (sometimes OSMi reports this as an error .. but it is technically allowed).

That help?
If you can avoid using a relation - that makes things easier/simpler.