Hi Volynia1919,

I'm afraid your changeset comment doesn't make much sense. I can't find any evidence of a temple complex having been on the map at this location before, nor can I find any evidence of a temple complex existing at this location.

Your previous changeset 2 years ago added an impossibly large cafe to this location.

The photo image you've added on this new building links to something that doesn't appear to really exist.

Are you able to provide more information to add context to this addition?

Hi dwh1985.

Just curious if you have any info about this star-shaped building: way/1008923823

It looks really interesting! What was your source on it? Does it have a name?

Hi Clara,

Welcome to OSM!

On OSM, with a few exceptions, we typically work off the idea of "one feature, one OSM element" which typically means you don't need to duplicate features such as parks and schools as both nodes and areas.

osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element

For example, the park node you created for "Greenbiar local park" represents the same feature as the existing park area. The node doesn't need to exist as the area was already on the map.

Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions!

Please do not add fictional features to OpenStreetMap.

Hiya Andrew,

Thank you so much for taking the time to write such a detailed reply to my questions.

> “I haven't found any reference material on which approach to apply when. Is it just a case of 'scale'? What are the ‘cons’ of closed ways?”

I suggest checking out this wiki page: osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon towards the bottom, there’s a really great breakdown under the header “Mapping Style, Best Practice”. As with almost everything on OSM, there’s a debate there, but for me it comes down to the last point regarding sparing a consideration for future mappers and being wary that making things needlessly complex is just asking for something to go awry at a later point in time.

On the Coast, we’ve generally been moving away from having smaller parks and similar areas formed out of complex collections of dozens of ways as it makes things really, really hard to maintain as all the new development occurs here (especially around the north end of things where new places are being built all the time).

> “I’ve redone the park (and swimming area) as closed ways, and merged some of the split ways. Is this now correct?”

This looks better, but you’ve got the park as a one-member relation – the relation that was the park can be removed and the tags can be moved back to the way that forms the area.

>”use the DCS base map to define residential areas strictly, with those that go to the lake edge separate to the areas that don't; splitting the lake edge line at the points where the residential meets the lake and create a relation there. This does look clumsy as I didn’t apply the correct road/residential area interpretation everywhere.”

I wouldn’t be linking separate residential areas under a single relation, but aside from that, I personally think the areas you’ve created are generally okay, and your work is neat and tidy from what I can see. Just bear in mind that the landuse “ground truth” may occasionally differ from the DCS map, so you may need to think about some areas rather than just defaulting to what DCS thinks is there. Our job here is to map locations as they are, not just copy DCS – though that’s an easy trap to fall into.

There’s a few mapping styles of landuse in different parts of the Coast, I personally prefer the really detailed version that allows for roads, retail, and other non-residential features to be excluded. Though, so long as things are neat and tidy, I think we can all get along, haha.

If I’m mapping residential block-by-block, I typically won’t use a relation unless there’s something inside of an area like a large council-owned water basin or other non-residential feature.

> “similarly for land cover, I have created a way for the landside edge of lakeside woodland, even if it overlaps residential, and joined it to the Lake edge with a relation. (I thought I had done a similar thing along Dora Creek, but this renders differently, so probably not).”

For small areas of park/natural features, it may be easier both now and for others editing in the future to just create a single closed way area as opposed to making some kind of really complex series of relations between the water and adjacent landuse.

If the woods are part of a much larger area though, you may want to consider a relation still.

As things are in reality, landuse and landcover/natural features can intersect. I used to live in a house that was unquestionably residential, but I had rainforest woodland out the back that grew into my yard, The line was fuzzy and it’s generally ok to represent that in OSM by intersecting areas of that kind.

Best,

Wood

Hi kramar123,

Welcome to OSM!

When you publish your changes, they go live to the map, so please avoid uploading tests.

If you require any help, please feel free to reach out!

Hi!

Question - you're changing a lot of simple closed way areas into relations composed of several distinct ways. Is there a reason you're doing this?

I ask because by taking Vales Point Park as an example, that area is now composed of 6 distinct ways as opposed to just being 1 - which will make things a bit tricky for future editors and which also makes it much more likely someone is going to break something in the future without realising.

I'm not sure why iD didn't bring up error reports, but it can struggle a bit with larger relations from time to time. Whenever you're working with a larger relation it pays to manually doublecheck any changes you have made in iD.

Hiya Devin,
What is Aubrey’s Room? It has a name but no other tags.

Hello again,

You seem to have an intersection of the sale relation, here way/1006873855

way/1006873854

Is one of these lines possibly redundant?

Hello there!

I noticed Lake Macquarie had stopped rendering. It seems like you had accidentally left out the short ways on either side of this groyne (-33.0653527, 151.6408098).

I've added these ways as outers to the relation for the lake, so it (should, in theory) be a closed area again. Just thought I should let you know.

Cheers!

Hi Ruthlessmoose,

Welcome back to OSM!

I note that you have added a couple of parks over houses. Parks are defined in a certain way on OSM, and this doesn't include private residential yards.

You can read more about parks on OSM, here: leisure=park

Hi Eironmin,

In this changeset, you changed a building to a park and also created a big park covering many houses. I have corrected both of these issues for you.

Hi BirdMan3,
Is there a reason you moved a lot of the tagging for Stonehouse Wood Sanctuary from the area to a node?

Hi Andrew,
Welcome to OSM and thanks for your additions to the map.
The name tag should be reserved for actual names of things rather than descriptions. I have changed this bench from name=bench to amenity=bench as detailed here amenity=bench

Hi CamEigsti,

Welcome to OSM!

Please don't add personal information such as individual ownership of buildings or plots to the map.

You can read more about the limitations on adding private information, here: osm.wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information

Thanks for the heads up, this should be fixed now.

Hi CoastalAU!

Welcome to OSM!

You've currently got this house marked as being named "Our Coast". Is that the name of the house? Do people live there or is it entirely dedicated to some form of organisation?

Hi AtlasDeric!
Welcome to OSM.
Rather than tagging these features as a park, maybe amenity=shelter ("shelter" via search in the editor) and tourism=viewpoint ("veiwpoint" via search in the editor) would be better to describe them?

There's also another park with the same name, that also appears to be over a private yard nearby: changeset/60854161