Hi,
Beach relation/6554134 now has 0 width...

Hi,
Thanks for repairing these.

Err typo ...
'There are now in error ... and should be changed.'

Hi,
You are changing the source of Way: 67803535. Yet you have not changed the tags on the way that say "source"="ABS_2006" and "attribution"="Based on Australian Bureau of Statistics data". These not are in error ... and should be changed.

Without the tree area you can now see some problems ...
relation/7743426#map=12/-34.4876/115.7516 shows the state forest is still tagged .. as that is now part of the NP it can be retagged/removed. I'd retag it so that mappers can still see it, possibly from landuse=forest to was:landuse=forest?
It will be worth looking around while the tree cover is not rendered to see what is there.

OSM specifies we don't use copyright data .. the source for D"Etrecasteaux NP is tagged as CAPAD 2016 .. think that is the best that can be done unless you have another source that is usable in OSM (non copyright or allowed by agreement).

After using landcover tags in a few NP I have come to the conclusion that it is not a good practice and have done extensive work in removing them from NPs NSW, they are now completely separate things.

1) Landuse=forestry was introduced for the first time with this changeset to this NP.

2) Trees don't usually start and stop at some administration boundary!
For example Lane Cove National Park relation/2962929#map=13/-33.7737/151.1393 with tree area relation/3651359#map=13/-33.7737/151.1393

3) Layers in principle are used to signify one feature is vertically displaced from another - e.g. a road on a bridge over a river. It should not be used to cover up things that are not true. The tree area example above excludes various residential areas, grass areas, sports areas. This is done using a multipolygon relation. The tree area does not follow the NP boundary.

4) I do not think the area is logged any more .. so landuse=forest is wrong! Use land cover tagging such as landcover=trees, natural=wood.

5) I think you will find boundary=national_park is being replaced with some administration boundary thing.

I'll remove the landuse deceleration from this NP boundary. If you want to tag the tree area don't do it as the NP exclusively. The present tagging has trees through the beach, a lake!

Oh .. not all of the area is covered by trees .. some of it is beach !

Hi,
Is the D'Entrecasteaux National Park used for forestry? You have added the tag landuse=forest ... is it not just a land cover of trees .. not a land use?

Hi,
These edits are resulting in the beaches getting crossed up.
Way so far effected are 485462676, 304473466, 485462672. There may be others too.

It can be hard to determine what is part of the park.
Is the Catalina Conference Center part of the Park?
Is the foot path to Starboard Close part of the park? And, if so .. how wide is the parks area there?
These things are easier to determine using the base map.

Hi,
Some of these ways are used by other relations .. not just woods. This results in those relations being open ... and they need fixing... eg relation/3113565
As you now use another account .. I think this changeset should be reverted.

Deleted the canal and water supply. Crosses boundaries in LPI Base Map, not eveident in LPI Imagery. Real stuff only in OSM please.

The buildings should be 'square' - use the S key in iD to do this.

The Finger Park looks like it should be larger .. use the LPI Base Map.

Ok? .. Keep mapping stuff Pwnedragon , but keep it real for OSM.

Hi,
This has destroyed way/361670455 - a building...

Hi,
Memory test?
You named the Bulga trail 'no thorough road'. Is this for 'all' - including walkers, fire engines, land managers .. or is it for private cars/motorcycles .. ? And then is the 'end' at the gate in the north?
I have remove the description from the name, but think the access restriction should be placed on the gate .. probably motor_vehicle=private would be best.

Hi,
For things like parks use the LPI Base Map - it has the legal boundaries and names of the park. I have changed Rathmines Park to match the Base Map rather than imagery.

The area is ~ 100km east to west and ~ 50 km north south. Bit crinkly with edges and inner holes .. but it is a bit big for a dam.

Think you meant to target something else ... certainly made this area look as if the sea had risen a lot. :)

Hi,
relation/6361203 .. was tagged as a treed area .. you have added tags
name=Murchison Dam and waterway=dam ...

No .. this very large area is not a dam. I have remove these tags and reinstated natural=wood.

Hi,
Welcome to OSM.
The 'Unnamed' track you introduced,
it got linked to an administrtion boundary and then draged the admindoundary awya from where it should be. I have undone that.
The name of 'unnamed' is not good ... use noname=yes. The name tag should ONLY be used for names, not other things like saying it has no name .. if a description needs to be added then description=* can be used.

This track has a lot more detail in it if you look at the LPI Base Map.

Hi,
Looking at ways 565191189 and 565191193 ... these were not connected.

But I question the road classification! Most people here walk. I would think that these would be better classified as tracks .. looking at Digital Golbe Preium they are certainly smaller than the main connecting roads. They may even be 'paths' where no car (or 4WD) can go due to the width.

Next .. the surface=unpaved is a usefull addition tag.
Please consider this in your edits.