Hi, have you followed the import guidelines for this?
osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines
Did you obtain proper permissions and licenses to use the data in OSM from the data owner.
Have you checked and resolved duplicates where these are already mapped in osm?

please zoom in closer and try to map building outlines more accurately. I re-mapped this house.

Hi, the natural=heath areas are vine rows instead. Are you mapping from satellite imagery alone?

Hi, do you occupy an office at this location?

Hi, this is a public map. This edit is reverted, please don't vandalise the map.

I have reverted as I expect these are just personal edits which don’t belong on a public map.

The osm database updates immediately but the rendered maps, such as the standard layer on osm.org, take a bit longer or a day or so for lower layers. You can clear your browser cache (ctrl+r on my mac) to force it to load the latest version. Alternatively, you can download via a Tor browser which is unlikely to be caching local images so much and can choose another circuit if checking often.

Hi, the ways leading to the property houses would be better tagged as highway=service + service=driveway and for some access=private and for the winery likely access=permissive
Many of the buildings could be more specifically tagged e.g. building=house
The area of property of the winery could be landuse=commercial and the craft tag only put on the winery building or a poi in that area like you have with the shop.
You have accidentally added a building tag to the crop area to the south of the main road.
These are only suggestions for you to consider further to assist in working out the correct tagging.

Hi, this is a public map. It seems likely you are mapping personal detail pertaining to GG on the map. Should I delete it?

no response, deleted Metro Award & Ceremonial Capability.

Maxar imagery suggests the building=retail only occupies part of this retail landuse area.

Hi, is the new building footprint taking up all this area?

I have done as described above

Hi, I added motor_vehicle=private to all highway=track in Mt Coot-tha Reserve so navigation apps don't route vehicles along them
https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=127823685

correction:
added motor_vehicle=private to all highway=track in Mt Coot-tha Reserve, se Qld

Ok, the ones that appear to be fire trails or wide enough for that would be tracks and single pad ways would be paths.
I expect all the tracks within the Mount Coot-tha Reserve should have motor_vehicle=no to that routers don't use them for private vehicles. Most seem to have the foot and bicycle ok and most of the mountain bike trails are well tagged and on the western side of Sir Samuel Griffith Drive.

No public vehicles are permitted on any of these ways and they are mostly used by hikers or cycles but they are tagged as tracks if they can be traversed by two track vehicles like 4wds and fire trucks.

Hi
if these tracks are able to be traversed by the park managers vehicles and are used by four-wheeled (two-track) vehicles and often take the form of two wheel tracks in the ground, then they need to be tagged as tracks. This is regardless of whether they are used mainly by hikers.
highway=track
You are tagging the physical structure of the way that the vehicle or hiker is traversing.
Those that are narrow and not suitable to be traversed by two-track vehicles frequently used in bushland or remote areas are most frequently tagged as paths.

Offroad cycling and mtb trails have there own tags.

In Australia, most mappers prefer to use highway=footway only to tag cement footways around suburban areas.

I expect this changeset needs to be reverted to reinstate those that are tracks.

After reading more documentation I expect your form is ok for osm

or is this preferred…
way/511615479#map=19/-37.53022/143.82128

…or is syntax and semantics more freeform than I expected?