hi and welcome to OSM. The building outline should follow the building footprint instead of the property boundary. You can take a look at how other buildings nearby have been mapped to check.

I'm not sure the reason to remove historic=memorial here? I've reverted the changeset to restore it for now.

not sure what was wrong with this, but I've reverted this changeset in changeset/174187322 based on the reasons given in the changeset description

I've reverted this changeset since it appears to be related to a temporary event and per osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don't_map_temporary_events_and_temporary_features we don't map these kinds of temporary events in OSM.

the boundary=national_park tag is discouraged in Australia per the guidelines at osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Land_and_boundaries

We generally use boundary=protected_area in combination with protection_title=National Park to indicate the designation along with the protect_class tag.

it's good practice to keep the history as you edit features osm.wiki/Good_practice#Keep_the_history

this means instead of deleting something just to re-add it, it's best to adjust what's already there. this will depend on the situation, but in this case it would be better practice to try and fix the existing buildings.

It's also possible in JOSM to find the affected dragged nodes, look at their coordinates history and right click over the Latitude/Longitude text and choose "Restore".

Sometimes this can be easier than a selective revert where you do want to keep most of the other changes.

that's not pyramidal, it's hipped roof:shape=*

building=yes should only apply to the building, if you're drawing the area to cover the grounds/site there shouldn't be a building tag. I think the iD editor adds this by default as part of the preset, so may need to be manually removed.

I've restored the landuse=commercial tag, there is no other landuse tagged here and I think commercial is the best fit for a childcare based on landuse=*

the original tree nodes seem to be well mapped and had further details confirmed via a survey so I've reverted this change.

While in this case I think it's worth retaining tree nodes, they were originally added from imagery and likely weren't accurate anyway (2 nodes added where there was one tree, or vice versa) therefore I've left this change

I think in this setting the trees can be mapped as nodes and to restore the deleted nodes I've reverted this changeset.

I've reverted this to retain the original tree nodes.

I've reverted this change.

I think in this case the trees which were mapped as nodes are sufficiently distinct to be mapped as nodes, especially here where they are sporadic and not in a strictly regular interval along the nature strip.

"Saturday: Closed,Sunday: Closed" can be added with "Sa off; Su off" this makes it explicit that it's closed on the weekend.

I dispute the point that the tree nodes didn't have any other details on them, node/12135349872 had leaf_cycle=deciduous which was lost in this change.

Regardless I agree with others points here that in this case the individual trees should be retained, even if they were just natural=tree.

I agree that it's useful to map tree rows as features especially the kind in the photo at natural=tree_row

I have at times combined both methods using mapping a way with natural=tree_row with the nodes along the way set at the position of each tree within the row and then applied natural=tree to those nodes. That captures both the individual trees and the "tree row". This approach is described on the wiki.

I'm not sure if these trees should be considered a tree row though.

What shouldn't be individual natural=tree nodes? a dense hedge.

hi I see you've removed the Aboriginal site tags, I raised this with the original mapper at changeset/127996117 if the site is private property and public access is restricted then it's good to add the access=private tag, however the Aboriginal site should still have the relevant tags preserved, especially since this is a publicly documented site according to https://www.saveglenlee.com/

What was your reasoning for removing the tags?

Yeah according to https://www.saveglenlee.com/ it's private property so I think you were right to delete the nature reserve way/1106545342/history

However, the site also mentions a Aboriginal sites, so it does sound like there are some publicly documented sites here. In this case I think it's important to retain the tags for the rock carvings but agreed that access=private should be added if not open to the public.