Hi,
Unfortunately this breaks relations for
Mulligans Flat Nature Reserve
has some effect on the boundary for Throsby

Reverted. Start again .. but be carefull in deleting things.

Unfortunately ...
The changeset that made this error also made other errors . So this 'fix' just makes fixing the rest of the errors .. harder?

I have reverted this changeset along with the other error causing changeset.

Hi,

The reserve has a legal boundary shown in the LPI Base Map. The grass can begin or end at some other place - they don't need to be aligned.

Hi,
What is the source of this Mt Alexandra Reserve?

I can see some reserves in the LPI Base Map .. but nothing for Mt Alexandra?
Looks to be a reserve rather than a park.
http://www.wsc.nsw.gov.au/services/community-facilities/parks-reserves

Hi,
An old entry .. but a question on it.
Relation: 2723199
Tags:
"landuse"="forest"
"type"="multipolygon"
"source"="Bing"
Near Laurieton. Is this simply a collection of trees .. or is it used for timber like a state forest? Given the source is bing I'd say it is a collection of trees, rather than used for timber production.

Hi,
Way: 466215252 - forest is not entirely covered with trees.. and if you look closely on th eLPI base map you can see it extends to the east for some distance too. I have extended the area and tagged it as a park. It could be a nature reserve though.

I have deleted some ways.
Some of these look to be in the middle of a building. Others appear to be irregular shapes of what look to be swimming pools - probably private swimming pools.
Remove multiple tags on a few nodes for a simple parking entrance on the same drive way.

Hi,
Bing imagery cannot possibly be the source of these boundaries. What is your source?

Good Luck with it..

HI,
These tags already exist in the relation - they are duplication and I have removed the tags... but

The relation is not closed.. as these 2 ways do not form an area Ways: 594644996 and 594644996.. perhaps they should be removed from the relation untill this can be resolved? Put tags on them when they are removed from the relation to say what they intended to b?

Hi,
Welcome to OSM.
Your changeset comment of 'a lot, lot' is not helpfull. Looks to be detailing a residential plot? Why not say so?
Read osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments for ideas?

The way/594113013 only has thetag area=yes .. but what is it? Looks like it could be a private swimming pool? In which case tag it leisure=swimming_pool with access=private? The way also crosses it self .. so it is rather a confused thing.

The document is copyright ... do you have permission to copy it into OSM?

There is a copyright notice on;

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/planmanagement//final/20140041WianamattaRPVol1.pdf

https://www.epnsw.com.au/projects/wianamatta-regional-park-masterplan/

and the third document links to
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/help/copyright-disclaimer.htm

I don't think these are legally usable in OSM due to OSM copyright requirements.

Sigh. I've fixed it .. again. I hope he has better explications of what he is doing ...
Further comments on changeset/59521132 and changeset/59584398

OSM maps the present .. not the predicted future.

You continue to break the relation/6058483 for the Wianamatta Regional Park.

And other relations...

WHY????
What are you trying to disconnect ... ??
Are you trying to disconnect South Creek from the boundaries?
If so .. how about make a way or relation for south creek - a new one. Then remove the tags for south creek from the existing boundaries?

Broken relation/6058483 - wood.
Repaired....

Not fixed... relation/6058483 also uses these ways... leave it to the locals???

Messed up .. not a closed relation presently. Warmbatcher has also beentrying to correct it.

I have used the LPI Base Map to close the relation ..

This has broken relation/6354226 - wetland.
I have corrected this using the NSW LPI Bzse Map ... and changed the appropriate source tags to suit.