HI,
Welcome to OSM.

The way/540628661 tagged 'landuse=residential' has some problems.
First I cannot see it with the source you have of LIP Imagery .. but it does show up with bing - so I'll add the source tag to the way/540628661 - that will make it clear to anyone else who comes along. Err .. you could have used the LPI Base Map .. and that is probably a better source!
Next .. the way crosses it self .. this is not good as it is confusing for the computer to work out what is inside and what is outside. With residential areas OSM accepts that small parks etc can be included in the residential area. So easier to just not include them into OSM residential areas. Makes it simple for us to map.

I have changed this to what I think is a little better.
Take a look and see what you think.
OK?

Hi,
These wetlands would be better mapped as a relation.
Using relations would allow the use of the river bank as part of the outer way.

At present these generate errors on OSMinspector - ways with shared segments.

Hi,
I used the note to preserve the location .. if someone moved it (for what ever reason) I would have a reference for moving it back without going through my sources.

Source ... umm will have to think on it. ?LPI ...
I used these for minor alignment with LPI base map, my gpx files
Yes to survey_point .. non trig point .. umm think they are called state ref marks or some such. They are used by surveyors and have various accuracies too.

Hi,
The name key should not be used to describe the function. Use the description key if you must. E.G. 'Pit Lane' way/116586618.

Hi,
The relation/7723473 - building=house has 3 outers that touch. This is flagged as an error in OSMinspector. They do look like all one building - so a single way rather than a relation?

Hi
In Australia the default language is English. OSM tag the name=* tag to be the same as the name:en=* to be the same (in Australia). Yet you have them as different. Just use the name=* tag. If there is a local name or alt name then use the tags loc_name=* or alt_name=*

Hi,
Relations don't like touching outer - you have 2 touching buildings... in this relation/7722753.
Do they really touch?
If so is there is 'knock through' to provide passage between the two? Then they would be considered one building.
Or if they don't touch at the walls then separate them - it is only the roofs that give the impression of touching?

Hi,
The Lalor Library relation/7725472 has 2 building that touch one another, there roles are 'outer' in the relation. Relations don't like touching outers.
So .. do the buildings really touch? If so is there not a 'knock through' to provide passage between the two - thus making one building? OR the builing walls are separate - it is just that the roofs extent outwards to give the impression that the buildings touch?

Hi,
Happy to see someone else mapping bus routes!
The later public transport method is not too hard to use in OSM ... I did Relation: 686 (7258397) with some help ... see relation/7258397#map=15/-33.7219/150.3061 This too does not have all the stops nor the stop references .. not worried about it my self as they don't mean much to me.

Hi,
relation/7712903 - highway=service ... does not need to be a relation. It is a simple area that continues under the roof (so the roof is not an inner). It does not need a label .. and the star mart has no role in the relationship. Deleted the relationship and put highway=service on the way. Fixed.

These 'lakes' cannot be relied on to have water .. so the tag intermittent=yes should be used.

Hi,
Way: 537154004 (building=roof) that you added here crosses it self... that is rather confusing and does not really happen in the real world.
Take a look at it.

Take a look at the Sydney relation:(5729534) .. that is a suburb.

If you want Parramatta as a city/town etc then maybe look at what has been done for Sydney as a city?

But I'd recommend contact on the Australian mailing list first.. [email protected]

In the mean time I have changed this back to suburb.

Hi,
This moves coastline to back of beach ...

Good Luck - keep mapping.

Some comments;

The tag "area=yes" is not required.

The Relation: 7670619 has one member Way: 533296035 as "inner". But an inner of what??? Water Park Wet 'n' Wild Gold Coast? Retail Movie World? Village Boundary Oxenford? County Boundary Gold Coast City? State Boundary Queensland? Country Boundary Australia? This relation makes no sense in that it has no outer so it cannot be determined what it is an inner of.

Relation: 7660948 has one member Way: 533296034 as "outer". That is ok but as it only has one member the tags on the relation could be copied to the .single way and the relation removed. However what I assume you want is to include an "inner" in THIS relation of the above way/533296035. So this relation should have 2 members - the present one with role "outer, and a second one with role "inner" of Way: 533296035.

So what I would do:
Put Way: 533296035 into relation/7660948 with role "inner". Then delete Relation: 7670619.

I use JOSM .. so I don't know ID, no help on ID instructions.

Hi
Name of Way: Gravesend-Gineroi Road (104487552) looks wrong. I have added alt_name from LPI Base Map of Elcombe Road .. but I think it should be name=Elcombe Road .. as it is on the southern end.

Hi,

What 'alignment' were you trying to fix?

By moving node/4067681594 you have caused the administration boundary of Coffs Harbour to cross itself and not be in the correct place.
I have fixed the admin boundary and done my best around that node to the coast line and the beach relations.

Hi,
Relation 7660949 - highway=pedestrian .... with one member as an inner ... is wrong!

I think the area is a tree area .. and should be simply tagged on the way/533296035 as natural=wood and landcover=trees. The relation/7660949 can be deleted.

The relation/7660948 highway=pedestrian .... with one member as an inner ... is wrong!
The present member should have the role outer. Then you add way/533296035 with role inner .. and the other tree areas also with role inner.

Does that make sense?

Hi
The way/533298379 - farmland that you added crosses it self - along Fogarty's Gap Road. Generates an error in OSMinspector of 'shared segment'. In this instance I thing you can safely remove the appropriate nodes from the way without any impact on what you are mapping.