Multipolygon outer ways cannot share segments ..
see https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=138.51576&lat=-31.34135&zoom=18

Not many places would run one cow. Glenlock station listed as a working farm ...
https://www.schoolactivities.com.au/school-activities-directory/glenloch-station
and a story to tellhttps://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/5992679/growing-up-on-the-glenloch-property-the-life-of-a-canberra-pioneer/

The arboretum is not in this area.

The relation has existed for some time before your edits. I use some QA tools to check for errors, usually daily .. there were no errors here before your past edit. Your past edit removed many ways from the relationship, some of these to update, but some of that removal caused the remaining relationship to become open.

You altered the tags from meadow to grassland so you must agree that there is that ground cover there?

Removing the relation makes the area around Glenloch appear blank on the map .. so there is nothing here? I think there is something here.. probably a meadow with mostly grasses. And you can see some evidence of it from imagery.

Hi
The Servicetonj Rec. Reserve pitch has sport=football .. that is too generic .. soccer, Ozie rules? Which 'football' is it?

The name tag is not used for anything other than a name.

Football is too generic, it could be soccer, ozie rules etc etc. In this case is appears to be rugby.

Reverted. relation/9385711 restored - Whitlam area not arboretum.

Relation corrected as it should have been. Now has inners as well as a completed outer.

Done.

Keep mapping, take care with any copyright issues too.

Ok, I just wondered where the name came from..

The relation IS presently in error. It is not closed.
relation/9385711#map=15/-35.2811/149.0754&layers=C

You can see that the orange line of the relation ways do not from a closed area.

Err no.
Neither of the links you give show military use of the area. The parks link shows the area of relation/10094639 as the town common.

The second link shows the Mt Louisa- area as defense land and that appears to be already tagged. This is south of the area you have tried to tag as defense.

relation/10094640, v1 is a duplication of relation Radar (10094639, v1)? The name 'Radar' appears to have no justification, possibly a description?

relation/9385711 is not closed. The removal of ways from it in this changeset is probably what caused it.

hi,
The name for the De Grey River came from?

Multipolygons; there separate ways cannot share segments. See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=119.10348&lat=-20.24295&zoom=18

Note these water ways will be seasonal only carrying water in the 'wet'.

Hi,
A few errors here!
Overlaping ways - both bare rock.. way/339639250 and way/729079564. As these are inners in a relation they generate erros there too https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=146.78330&lat=-36.75348&zoom=13

And a few more, 339639250 with 729079564

And wetland may not overlap a lake? Way: Lake Catani (729079567) with Way: 729079566??

The OSM wiki on 'gardens' also goes on to say "A garden can have aesthetic, functional, and recreational uses".

Cannot a garden have grassed areas? Or is it a question of the proportions of grass vs the rest? I think the main function of the area is as a botanical garden, not as a park. While many use it for relaxation, recreation (playing touch football for example) is done elsewhere (in the Domain locally). It is, to me, less of a park more of a garden.

There is a bit to learn. The OSM wiki can be useful for guidance.
I use that osminspector tool to find my own mistakes (I make quite a few) - and I generally take a look around to fix others. When I come across a 'beginner' or a repetitive series of errors I contact the mapper as I have done here - we all learn best from fixing our own mistakes.
Keep mapping.. warning it is addictive!

Hi,
The warning 'crossing ways' needs to be fixed.
See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=116.04098&lat=-31.97514&zoom=18

The name key should only be used for a name not a description.
See osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

You have a node with the name 'foot bridge' changed from a ford=yes. This should be a section, some length not just a single node, tagged bridge=yes, layer=1. The bridge tag says it is a bridge, the layer tag says it is above the water.

I take it you are a local - there is a lot to be mapped.

Goodo. OSM takes a while. Rather than use the name tag try the description tag?
Not certain that the whole island should have scrub as the tag, possibly heath?
Good luck with the weeds!

Hi
relation/10055158 is confused! Not closed into a simple area...
relation/10055159 is not closed ... looks like the above relation has part of this in it.

See
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=147.78857&lat=-42.94904&zoom=16

Both of these, to me, seem to be simple ways, no need for a relationship (no inners, not very long and no shared bits).
----------------------------
landuse=forest to me implies this will be harvested for wood/timber. If it is simply a tree are then natural=wood could be better.
----------------
The area is surrounded by another land cover -scrub. In order to get things correctly rendered the inner bits should be included in a relation for the scrub with the role inner. See the present rendering of 'Pebble Beach' for the problem.
--------------------
The name tag should be for the name only. See osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

For the plant identification see species=*

---------------------------
The boundary and knowledge of the nature reserve cannot have come from the imagery? So where did that come from?

PS is there a camp ground on the island?

Hi,
The relation/10049098 has shared outer segments, that is not 'allowed'.

In this case a relationship is not required. Simply delete the relationship and add the tag natural=wood to the 3 ways.

See
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=116.07508&lat=-31.96981&zoom=14