Hi
I noticed that this bit was displaced.
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=153.04232&lat=-27.47811&zoom=18

Whilst I am especially adept at following trails, I find these that I mapped to be quite easily found and followed and it is my practice to use flagging tape in places where others may go astray for added safety. Because you were unable to find the trails, I shall re-hike the area to ascertain if they exist still before I re-state the paths. I am reluctant to delete bush paths mapped by others that become difficult to follow state because they can be quickly improved by renewed use by hikers once they are aware of their existence through the osm map.
There is provision for marking trail visibility in osm and because seldom used trails in difficult areas often have sections that are difficult to navigate they are an important tag. How renderers manage the display should not nuance correct tagging in osm.

highway=path

trail_visibility=*

Many of us quite like to follow the less travelled ways and really enjoy following though bush areas that have difficult to follow paths. These should be mapped and tagged appropriately even if faintly visible at times. I would like to see mappers add text descriptions to section of trails where it would benefit hikers but this is rarely done in practice but is probably best done in other places like wikiloc instead.
Thanks for the feedback and please be more cautious on deleting what others found important enough to survey and map.

Response from Joris received by email and pasted here for completeness...

I saw your message about deleted trails off Lepidozamia. I surveyed there just before my edits, and did not spot the deleted trails as being visible. Main issue is that OSM data may get used different than mappers may expect.

I know ‘trails’ like the Mt Everest ascent route are mapped as just highway=path and get rendered on hiking apps as regular hiking trails similar to e.g. an officially maintained park trail. For example : way/518618562#map=14/27.9858/86.8937

Hikers can get confused or lost when trying to follow a trail visible on the map yet invisible in nature. The original idea about highway=path (or footway) was a properly accessible and visible way to go, without being guided on the step by an app. OSM has no provisions for ‘poorly visible’ trails as none of the mappers or apps I know of manages such distinction. Mapnik also shows them as ‘regular’ The tags may be used by routing apps, but not by renderers. Hence, I still feel confident only visible trails should be mapped as such. The alpine route exceptions that came into practice is by lack of other means. But it is as shortcoming of both OSM and any mapping app that a ‘route’ and a proper trail cannot be told apart properly.

Hi,
you appear to have deleted a building mapped by another mapper though it still appears to exist on the satellite imagery that I used, enclosed another area as a retail building with zero building levels?, though it appears on satellite imagery to be a yard.
You have also included another node in the middle with no primary tag to describe what you are entering such as shop=car_parts or something more suitable.

I suggest you use something like https://osmybiz.osm.ch/#/9/-27.49122/152.67700
or https://www.onosm.org/# to initially help adding your business in to the OSM with more suitable tags.

Hi
you have deleted some of the track sections that I have mapped by survey. These were mapped because they exist and assist others in navigation. Whilst these small extensions of the track are incomplete and do not extend to the end of the trail, they are expected to be further mapped by myself or others in time.
You have also deleted part of the gazzetted D'Aguilar National Park boundary.

That’s fine, maybe add a description similar to the one you added here bhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/way/452202513 would be helpful.
regards, Nev

Hi
I curious about the tag bicycle=yes which you added to the Long Range Walking Track.
Unless this has been upgraded recently I would expect you cannot even carry a bike along 90% of this track, let alone ride it.

Ok, thanks
I only checked via the osmi site and it ran just before your edit.
Thanks for fixing.
Nev

Hi Dantine
Are you able to check the layout here in person?
If not, I will correct the geometry site unseen, as only a minor fix anyway.

Hi
Please spell street names in full
osm.wiki/Names
I notice Austin Street is not marked on adjacent streets...are you able to add the name to the correct street.
Tks

Hi
Please don’t delete private driveways mapped by others.... just tag them with access=private or other more appropriate tag.

Hi
I deleted the obvious error in the building:levels=204 you added in this edit.
This is a public map

Hi
there appears to be a self-intersection problem created here.
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=153.02235&lat=-27.46787&zoom=18
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=89879650#20/-27.46834/153.02374
Tks

no response, incorrect levels deleted

no response
Removed the "Main access road to site" duplicated over other named ways.

Hi
Please correct the building levels on your edits.
building:levels=*?uselang=en

I reverted your changeset.

Hi Ruben
I am inclined to revert this edit as I think it does not appear to me to be suitable for a public map. I am uncertain of its purpose.
Do you agree?

Hi Ruben
the "Main access road to site" tags are not conventional and I expect not for general public access and likely for temporary personal use.
You may be better using a website like Umap for such things.
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/

I altered the tags to
landuse=commercial
name=ANC Forestry Group Pty. Ltd.
shop=forestry