Duh. That should be Way: 706115379

way/706102957 should have role inner in the relation

way/9819399 should be role inner i the relation.

Problem ..

relation/9819240 see
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=149.12697&lat=-28.80709&zoom=18

Problem in relation/9819240 ... same as the other problems..

See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=149.20061&lat=-28.76297&zoom=17

You should start trying to fix these.

relation/9814681 shares segments.. see
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=146.91940&lat=-36.09079&zoom=16

Hi
relation/9808435 has 5 members - 3 of which should have the role 'inner' ..

There is also a duplicated segment.. from the two outers sharing the same location .. easiest to simply delete the shared part.

See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=149.18147&lat=-28.81660&zoom=14&opacity=0.75

Hi,
The relation you made 9813353, v1 .. is not closed .. https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=148.40607&lat=-36.40858&zoom=16&opacity=0.75

iD should have told you that before you saved it?

Hi,

The relation/9803819 has 2 members - both have the role 'outer' .. yet one is inside the other. It appears that one is an island inside the waterway. This should be repaired, probably by making the roles of the island an 'inner'.

No need to apologize. I mucked up 3 relations the other day... why I monitor the things!

Deleting way/152424431 has madethe bangaroo relation/2025307 open (not closed).

Try http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/byuser/

Hi,
node/6548730971 only has a name, nothing to say what it is.

Hi,

There is a problem with the relation/9108491 - North Metropolitan TAFE. Multipolygon relations cannot have there outer ways share segments.

As the TAFE would be responsible not only for the building but the grounds around them I would draw ways around the site - separate from the buildings and have those as members of this relation, not the buildings.

See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=115.86200&lat=-31.94808&zoom=17&opacity=0.67

way/692514426 is for trees.. deleting this has removed the trees from this area. Instead of deleting it .. modify its position?

Modifying way/692514418 has modified both the tree area AND the boundary of this national park that this way defines. This way should NOT be modified unless the National Park Boundary is wrong? If you want to change the trees here than divorce the relation for trees from the national park boundary - this is a big job. I'd leave it for a separate task.

Reverted this change set to restore park boundary and trees. .

I'll have a look at it later.

Wait a while for the trees?
Some places are still 'flooded' from some coding error.

I think 'we' all try to make the map better. There certainly is a lot of it that can be improved. And few mappers ...

Humm ..

You are adding 'scrub' and rock etc. Good. An increase in detail.

Between the scrub and rock? Tundra?

Finish off the additions.

Then Consider the tree edges, should have more detail here .. but time constraints prevented me entering it. Relation: 5449093 is the one.

Once those are tidy .. or you run out of time. then consider the trundra relation. The trees and scrub wold probably from the outers, and inners would be the rocks etc.

See how you go. It will not be easy.

Relation: 5985104 is now broken.

See the purple dots in https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=148.33928&lat=-36.17368&zoom=9

Basically some ways have had nodes removed, shortening them so they no longer connect together to form a closed outer way for the relation. If there are ways that join they have not been included in the relation.

When I introduced the tundra cover .. all of this area was mapped as 'trees'.

What, if anything, is between the tree area and the tundra area?

History:
The first estimation of the tundra area was done using the snow covered area, this was quick and got most of the area that was not trees out of the mapped tree area. Refining it can be done. And it can be done without braking the relations...