This relation is still broken ... 9973516 Boralma

Deleting way/2952237745 has destroyed the relation for Bluff Beach...

The coastline is supposed to be the high tide mark. Looking at Bing there is evidence of water at a higher point than you have marked.

Iluka Beach now exists as - a closed way natural=beach and as a way natural=coastline.

There needs to be more work done here.

Hi,
I don't thing grass land is right, little in that way to distinguish it from the surrounding countryside. It is a man_made=geoglyph. I don't know if that renders..

Hi,
Most buildings have right angled corners. These are hard to draw... so there is a helping tool in iD that you can use to 'square' things up. The keyboard short cut is 'q'. See https://learnosm.org/en/hot-tips/tracing-rectangular-buildings/

It is normal to respond to these change set comments.

And you learn best by improving your own edits. The relation/9906791 still has this error.

These will need to be removed. wetlands, cliffs.. possibly other things. I recommend that you do it.

Hi,
relation/9986828 has the same tags on the outer ways as it does in the relation. The tags on all the outer ways of the relation should be removed.

This is relations broken ... 9973516 Boralma

Good Luck.

I use https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=146.90548&lat=-36.12732&zoom=12 to check for my own errors .. updates ever 24 hours.

Byawatha not byawatha?

Also extraneous way deleted from this admin boundary and North Wangaratta.

No response.

Shadows do not necessarily indicate cliffs, they can indicate depressions. Look at the LPI imagery .. no cliff. Look at the LPI Base Map .. no cliff

As a person who has walked in this area... No. No wetlands.

LPI Base Map shows wetland that is some 300m by 100 m, see Way: 26538921. I think I can find other areas of smaller areas too.

No.

You cannot possibly tell that is is or is not wet land from the imagery.

Wetland in the LPI Base Map is shown, this area is not mapped as wetland.

Cease mapping what you cannot see and remove those areas that are questionable!

Hi,
relation/9916297 looks to be the same as the relation you have tagged as wetland, yet this is tagged scree.

Again.. have you been here?

Hi
relation/9919734 does not look like 'wetland' to me? If it were true wetland then I'd expect it to be on hte LPI Base Map and it is not.

The stated sources are all satellite imagery. Not ground survey? Have your been there?

From that description.
"The building outline represents the area of land covered by the union of all parts of the building. The outline may in most cases also be considered the building footprint. This is A CLOSED WAY or multipolygon tagged with building=*. "

A multipolygon outer ways cannot share segments. The one here breaks that rule. There is no need to a multiplygon as this building is not complex enough to demand one.

The main perimeter of the building surrounds each and every building:part=* and as such are part of the main perimeter...

The relation is not required. Delete it.. but before you do .. copy hte relevant bits on to the single outer way tagged building=* (not the parts).

The outline way building=* can have all the common information of the entrire building - address, operator etc. The building:part=* says they are members of the building.

Hi,

The relation for Waranga Crescent has a problem. The outer ways of a relation should not touch one another. In this case it looks to me like the rear building is a garage and that can be separate building that touches the home. I'd put the address and other data from the relation on the home, and delete the relation.

Hi,
This has problems!

First .. it does not need to be a multipolygon, not complex enough.

The single outer way for the building should have the tags of the relation .. it is the entire building.

The building:part=yes might be tagged building:part=retail?

Apart from that .. very nice!