Hi,
Some of the roads you are adding .. are not connected to the other roads .. they may look connected on a paper map but when used for routing they don't actually connect - the ways don't share a node.

Hi,

You are creating 'relations' that are not closed. E.g Relation: 8284240 - tennis pitch. You are also creating a way e.g Way: 586936820 ... which has the same tags. The relations you create are not closed - they don't connect to form an area...
So these relations are - duplications or ways you have created and they are faulty in that they are not closed.
I have already removed the parking relation yesterday .. any to find the tennis relation today ... it too is now removed.

-------------------------
The changset description of 'updates' and 'neighboring updates' are NOT acceptable... read osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments for ideas.

Hi
sport=football is not specific... does it mean rugby ... australian football or something else.

Hi
sport-football is not good!
For multiple sports
sport=multi a little better
sport=rugby;soccer is better - please specify the known known sports.

Hi,
Welcome to OSM.
You attempted to add an 'office' ?? But the node (point) you added only had the name, address etc data .. no OSM physical features. So the entry has been removed. Maybe if you add the node again but this time with office=yes or office=company it will remain. The description tag should not be used for advertising! Use it to say what you do .. 'training for forklifts, " etc might be ok.

Hi,
Welcome to OSM.
This changeset moved a set of traffic lights well away from where they should be.
It also added a node (a point) that had no tags (data) and added a node with address 44;61 which makes no sense to me. There is already a node there with the address 44.
So... all this has be removed to get back to where you started from. If you want help .. ask.

From the LPI Base Map .. I expect it is part of the Hospital is some official way... possibly for future expansion, drawn up by a planer unaware of the topography.
Might be best to remove the park and recreation grounds tags as these are assumptions based on appearance/unofficial use?

Hi,
Do you know this area?
It has me puzzled ... I can see no signs to say it is a 'park'. Agree that it is 'undeveloped' and may be best to tag it as an area of trees...

Arrr got the number wrong ..? The otehr one must be a way I fixed up.

It is relation/8257215 .. name=873 ... and it is still there so you can work out where the name should go.

The relation has been deleted by someone... they are not considerate enough to leave any feedback.
My guide is .. don't use relations unless you really need to.
I can only assume that the name that was tagged on the deleted relation is now lost. It was a 3 digit number .. possibly a building number or an address.

Hi
relation/8256350 "natural=bare_rock' has 1 member - this does not need to be a relation. It is a simple way. Changed.

Do not use the name= tag to describe something!!!!!!!
If you really must describe it then use the tag description=
description=*

Hi,
The relation/584484312 carries a name ... but no physical or administration features ... What is it?????

Hi,
The Gondwana Rainforests of Australia World Heritage Area relation is now not closed...
Secondly .. are you certain that the additions are part of the world heritage listing?

I'm not doing CAPAD ... leaving it to others.

Hi,
You have made the path part of the park. If it is to included as part of the park it needs to be defined as an area - not just a simple a=way.

I keep an eye on OSMinspector https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=147.21387&lat=-31.88315&zoom=6 ... as it is fairly simple. There are other OA tools ... though they tend to be more picky and complex
https://www.keepright.at/report_map.php?zoom=14&lat=-33.87613&lon=151.17154

http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#zoom=7&lat=-33.688&lon=147.832&item=xxxx&level=1&tags=&fixable=&overlays=FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT - can be set to only detect one users 'errors'.

Note that an indication is not 100% an error .. it is a possibility.

In general if I think it is worthwhile .. or my changes may not be what is there ... I'll try contacting the original mapper.

You look to know more about the details there .. so I'd pass it back to you :)
Long jump is not well documented .. sport=long_jump

I was attracted by OSMinspector that detected a possible error. Having identified an error .. I fixed it as well as I could. I'd tend to do the other sports - e.g. long jump as separate features not as part of the running track.

Hi,
relation/8229235 - shingle ...
As it is a simple single way ... why make it a relation?
Also ... this change set makes it an 'inner' role - as a hole in a non existent outer ... makes no sense.
I have deleted the relation .... the way is already tagged with shingle.

Hi,
This changset has made a relationship for a National Park cross itself. I corrected it. Be carefull with things- they can be connected to more than what you are doing.

Regarding relation/8222546 - running track.

Basic relationship rules;

Relation outer ways should not touch each other

Relation way should not have the same tags as the relation.

------------------
I have separated out the running track and correct it.
Ways 581481805, 581481801 and 581481796 appear to be not part of the running track, I have tagged these as surface=paved. They may be used for other sports?