Hi.
You have also added 2 roads .. they are not connected ... or is it just an error? If are they really not connected then the last nodes should be tagged noexit=yes.
The roads are Way: Burke Street (116496100) and Way: 560081904

Hi,
You have donesome duplications...
eg
Way: 633837264 duplicates Way: 633846426... there are others. I have removed a few. I'll stop and let you have a look
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=147.21387&lat=-31.88315&zoom=6

Hi,
the relationship for Yeerongpilly Green is not good.

Some members have no role.

Some outers share ways with other outers.

You have the relationship as a brown field .. but then some members have other tags suggesting they are not brownfiled...

Needs some work.

Communication=
I take it that Traces Hut is ruins.. in which case building=* tag does not apply. So I have tagged it as ruins:building=hut.

Looks like the Pioneer Womens Walking Track uses parts of Way: Centre Track (24692212)

Think Pioneer Womens Walking Track would be better as a route relation - so it can use these other ways without conflicts.

Hi,

The roads you add should 'join' to the other roads, not just look like they meet. This is important for computer routers as they need to find where roads join so they can turn into/out of them.
You have the end of Zenith Place a few meters from Ferdinando St for example. I have joint it up - moved it to Ferdinando and joined it to it.

As you have now gone and removed various ways used by the relation/5985104 that related to snow fall and there for tree line ...
you may as well remove it and all the ways that are not used by anything else. Do check if you remove a way that is is not used by anything else. Like another relation.

----------------
When you have a quire then contanct the originating mapper .. in this case me.. and maybe look back at the changeset that created it .. in this case
changeset/37259166

Hi,
Landuse=residential should be applied to large areas, say a suburb or at least a block. What you have applied it to is a building. So I have changed the tagging to building=house.

Hi,

The name=tag is for names only, to contain solely name, not to describe the type or location of the object or one of its other properties (such as height, elevation, operator, access restrictions, classification/certification/quality labels...).

Deleting name=Park/Feild from a number of parks.

Ok,
Admin boundaries are a problem. Some of them use roads and creeks, so when people come along (like me and you) and 'improve the road/creek' they can break the boundaries... mutter mutter.

I now take the view that the road/creek is the thing that counts, the admin boundary can ether put up with it or get separated.

Hi,
Why did you remove way/400740574 from relation/6015049? This brakes the relation. .. it is for the Chambigne State Conservation Area.

I do wish your changeset comment said more about what you are doing.

Hi,
Way: Manuka Place (630117401) was overlayed by Way: Wattle Close (238849730).
I have shortened the Wattle Close way ... but I am not certain of the names here. Can you please check these name are now accurate?

I don't think landuse=homestead is rendered. Think you may find any rendering has been done due to another tag. Reading through the proposal I cannot see it fitting the Australian circumstance.

In any event - these areas should be part of a relationship for the tree area with the role of inner.

Hi,
The edit looks to have broken the relation for Clarence Valley Council. Possibly others?

What were you trying to do? The changeset comment does not tell me that.

Hello,

You have a node tagged as landuse=homestead, name=Viaduct Barn.
Umm .. that would be better tagged as an area. And 'homestead' is not something OSM knows about, possibly landuse=residential for a homestead. But is it a homestead? Or a barn?
I think making it an area with landuse=residential or landuse=farmyard and name=name=Viaduct Barn could be better?

Hi,
You have tagged landuse=homestead. I do know what a homestead is. But the closest OSM fit is landuse=residential .. probably with description=homestead?
I also note that some of these are inside a tree area .. and there is no hole in the tree area for them.

There are a few of them you have in this general area.

Done.
I'm not an iD users - so I did it with JOSM.

Hi,
The nodes with the tag arboretum=yes look like individual trees? Might be better tagged natural=tree - this is for significant trees and I'd take it that is the case if you have tagged them as individuals?
An arboretum is usually a collection of trees - so an area. That is what has attracted me to the tag you used. But I think arboretum=yes would be a sub tag under another tag and that is not what I want. I think the following might be usefull for arboretums;

landuse=arboretum
and/or
leisure=garden, garden=arboretum

Arr, sorry may not have tracked who made the tag originally?

Was told once that I was the last person to touch something so I was responsible for it.. ummm not certain that is totally correct.

Hi,
Why not make these ponds one area? It would solve problems with overlapping ways.
If there are gaps between these area they they are not evident in the ways you have put in.