If you go back in history .. those tree areas were even bigger... I have broken them up into smaller ones .. still large but there is other stuff to do.
Good luck with it.

HI,
I have removed the relation for Halley Park and made it into a simple closed way. The relation was not closed and used the nodes for a residential landuse relation. The new way is independent of the past data.

Yep. Looks good.

I'd not add layer=1 .. it is 'on the ground' which is taken as layer=0 - the default layer.

relation/12114121 is not closed. See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=148.43335&lat=-36.76260&zoom=12

Suggestion: do NOT chose existing boundaries for other unrelated features for these tree boundaries. Doing so means any changes to these other things may (will) break the tree relation - thus making more work.

Hi,
I have corrected relation/12871880. Both ways within the relation had tags the same as the relation, this is an error. The relation should, in this case, carry the tags. The inner and outer ways should and not have the same tags as the relation.
A tag on the outer way would apply over the entire area of the way .. so an inner way would not exclude those tags. A tag on the inner way would apply over the area of that way. Having every thing tagged as a building means a building everywhere, no hole in the middle.

Hi
relation/13088827 ... err no ...
See building:part=* ... building:part is not a function of a relation.

Hi,
The relation/13042216 has an error .. and it makes no sense?
Multipolygon relations are made for;
things that have holes inside them ... this building does not?
things with lots of outer ways - that connect together to form a continuous area ... this one does not?

I think you wanted to signify the separation of the roof area into 2? In which case look at the tag building:part=*.

This line has been fixed by restoring way/141163412. If you want to remove it then the route the XPT takes has best be updated to what ever it uses.

Hi,
The Sydney to Brisbane XPT route relation now has no path through this area. Between Way: Interstate Line (138214723) and Way: Interstate Line (974906366) ... how does the train travel???
The relation is 8406942.

Hi
I have deleted the parking relation as it;
did not from an area.
went from the road centre.

If you want to indicate parking is available here but it is hard to map the actual area due to the tree cover ... simply place a node about here it is .. handy if you include the capacity...

Hi,
Welcome to OSM.

I have deleted the building=retail relation as it did not form a closed area and the building/s are already mapped.

Advice?
I would not include the front roofed area as part of the building - I'd just map to the shop front.
And there is an OSM guide - one feature = one OSM entry. So having bouth building and shop on the one feature goes against that. Some disagree with this. What I do is map the building footprint (area) and then use a node for the shop.Makes it easier if the shop moves as the node can then be simply moved to the new location.

Enjoy!

Hi
TC building corrected and simplified to a simple way.

Hi,
Welcome to OSM.

There is an error in relation/13105685 - parking. The 2 outer ways share a segment - this is an error.

My best solution would be to delete the shared segment and combine the 2 outer ways in to one way. Then just tag the single way for parking and then delete the relation. Much simpler data wise.

Hi
relation/13077729 - church ... has one member only .. with the role 'inner' .. where is the outer?

Hi,

Roles of coastline in Bass Straight corrected from inner to outer.

No response .. deleting.

Hi
Relation13070654 - grass only has one member.. so it does not need to be a relation?

Unless you want the sole member to be an inner of the surrounding grass? In which case the surrounding grass should be pat of this relation - with the role 'outer' ...

You have failed to respond to past attempts to have you correct your own errors and this changeset has yet more errors ... I wonder if you are getting the messages.. or you simply don't want to communicate?

Hi,
The lake Vincent relation is faulty - does not close. This has been deleted and the older simpler closed way has been restored and detailed.

The 'name' of "Historic Alignment (1943)" appears to be a description and not a name? In some places this looks not to exist? Possibly this should be tagged 'disused:highway=track description=Historic Alignment (1943)' ??? And ... what is the source of this information - the description cannot come from Bing?

Still needs fixing...

The role 'inner' is for things inside the 'outer' ... you have them reversed.