Hi,
relation/8217299 (heath) only has inners - there is no outer way.

The LPI Imagery is at least as good as the Digital Globe Imagery .. and it does not go white if you over zoom.
And yes the LPI Base Map has difference to the LPI Imagery .. so it is worth keeping an eye on the imagery where you can see what is being mapped. So I would tend to use the LPI Imagery here.

I have added unmapped cliff lines from the LPI base map already .. the plots from Bing are fair .. but lacks the topo data to confirm that a rock is the start of a cliff or just a rock or the start of a ramp.

JOSM has the ability to 'replace' an old way with new data and keep the way history, this is a better method of 'updating'. I have used it from time to time and most of the time it works.

Hi,
This area appears to have better mapping on the LPI Base Map - more detail on twists and turns.
Do you mind if I change your entries to comply with the LPI data?

Reverted. Some has already been undone.

Hi,
This is not closed. I'm not getting into that CAPAD thing so I leave it to you.

And has damaged relations for Clarinda District, Sandringham District, South-Eastern Metropolitan Region and Southern Metropolitan Region.

way/5795202496 is named!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is a continuation of Charman and Chesterville Rds - junction in middle of the Nepean Hwy.

Repaired. Be more carefull.

Take a look at the LPI Base Map for how they split the roads at roundabouts ... they don't split it along the length unless the roads are split too.

Similar for Prince Edward Ave. It is two way .. not one way... the road is not divided.

Hi,
Permanent Ave is two way, not one way. The road is only divided at the roundabouts.

If you want to separate it at each roundabout then be aware that there are 2 routes that will need modification as well.

Hi,
Reverted one node - used by a relation for a protected area.

This is how you contact someone in OSM - you go to a changeset and make comment on it - you will need to log in.
To find the changeset in JOSM select the object then click on 'VIEW' top left of screen theh select 'history and you will see who did things to that object. Click on the changset and that should open the changeset in your web browser.
Hope you can follow that?
Note that most people make mistakes rather than deliberate sabotage.

Hi,
The buildings you have added as Way: 505450991 and Way: 505451322 do not appear to exist. They have a road through them tat appears to exist.
This follows from a Diary entry @harrymahar/diary/43671#comments . As you can see I have named you, in part, in my response, I apologize for that but it demonstrates the problem in naming someone without the courtesy of contacting them!

Hi
The cycleway (way/573363541) .. does that connect to GIbson Street? They come close but have not connection in OSM .. so routing engines cannot rout a bicycle between the two.

Hi, Welcom to OSM.
You have added 'Norman Crescent' ... this is named as 'Arkley Avenue' in the LPI Base Map. Are you certain of the name?
The road is also mapped as 2 one ways .. the road is a single 2 way road, it is not separated so a U turn can be done on it for instance. So it should be mapped as a single road.
You will find the LPI base map will help with road and park names as well as park boundaries, road classifications.
Hope that helps.

If you want more than my rants/ideas then the Oz talk group is good .... [email protected]

Highways can have surface tags .. I use them, particularly on tracks. They can be displayed in OSMand .. some setting in its menus. Usually I just used 'unpaved' .. but it does distinguish between things like concrete .. so I'd hope it does something for sand too.
Tracks can also have other attributed - visibility, smoothness .. and then there is incline too ... but I don't think these are displayed anywhere yet.
The areas of sand etc should ideally be entered ... but there is a lot of the world yet to do so it takes someone to take individual areas on to get anywhere. However .. the rules are clear ... names only in the name space, no descriptions there.

Not about the 'display'. It is about being correct.
There are a large number of objects in OSM that have no name .. are they all to carry 'names' to describe them? Buildings? Tree areas? Grass areas? Water areas? Roundabouts? Toilets? All to carry descriptions of what they are in the 'name' space rather than relying on the graphical depiction of what they are?
I repeat - the 'name' tag should not be used to describe an object in OSM.

Do NOT use the name tag as a description!
See name=*#Additional_data
"name=* tag is supposed to contain solely name"

If you must describe something use the tag "description=*"

Firstly .. don't concentrate on 'display' but rather on correct tagging.
If you cannot find it on hte OSM wiki then try taginfo to see what others are using.
Alternative names? Cape? natural=cape

As for the sometimes river/sand surface...
Humm river intermittent=yes might get some comprehension .. or use the conditional tagging .. don't think it will 'display' but that is another problem.

The beach has a length ... and a width.

The length is >0 meters
The width looks like 0 .. nothing.

As it is a relation, having 0 width is ridiculous. Arr the relation only has a surface=sand .. and is clearly part of the named beach. So I have combined the two into the one relation. This goes against the present wit=ki on OSM beach definition .. but that definition is contentious.

So I have just now reverted at least some of this changeset... so the beach is now back to having some width. This may have reversed some of your changes ...