The building tag is meant for depicting the building outline and not the block of land.

This appears incorrectly mapped and bears no relationship to bounds of natural areas viewed on satellite imagery.

You would add the tag to the outline way of the house instead of a node as the building outline is already mapped.

Hi
place=isolated_dwelling is not the correct tag for a house name.
addr:housename=xyz is the correct tag.
See addr=*

If you would like to discuss this further with the Australian OSM community, a good place to do this would be via the talk.au mailing list
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

I have not seen the the amenity=letterbox method before but it seems more suited to a group of letterboxes out the front of an area that services unit complexes.

This is an example of the usual residential house address where the outline of the house is mapped and the address tags are added to that ...
way/371575977#map=19/-27.67730/153.18092
and here is a example where just a node is placed over the building location
node/2122421434#map=17/-27.68124/153.17865
Sometimes duplexes have the outline of building mapped and two nodes inside with address of each unit on their own node.
Any of these methods are fine.

Examples of these methods can be seen nearby...
node/2122421114#map=19/-27.68272/153.17862
way/371575977#map=19/-27.67728/153.18058
way/986829586#map=19/-27.70605/153.16817
node/9209142067#map=19/-27.22994/153.02838

Thanks, I updated the wooded areas a bit.

Though if these houses are the usual house letter boxes served by the postal service, the addr scheme may be more suitable.

apologies, your tagging is correct...I was completely unaware of this tagging scheme...
amenity=letter_box

You appear to have taken a guess at how the tagging scheme works in the OSM.
Please refer to the wiki guidance...
osm.wiki/Addresses

Hi
have you had a go at fixing this problem yet? If not, I will in the next couple of days.

Hi
have you had a go at fixing this problem yet? If not, I will in the next couple of days.

:)

Here is useful info on multipolygons
osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon

Hi
There is a problem with this multipolygon relation
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=152.95289&lat=-26.71289&zoom=16
Mutipolygons are much better handled using Josm

This changeset did not need reverting as I fixed Eudlo Creek National Park when reverting Changeset: 121339139.
Because the multipolygon relation for the NP is restored I removed the name from the wooded area you mapped.
This part of the map seems fine now.
Tks

no response, reverted this changeset, before too much else gets mapped, to restore Eudlo Creek National Park and wooded area in vicinity.

I can easily fix these two changesets I have commented on. Just need confirmation that you have seen my messages and are ok that I fix them.
Tks

Hi
You seem to have added three inner parts to the Greenbank Army Range relation
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=152.95375&lat=-27.64026&zoom=14
Not sure what you meant to do but these would seem to be to be part of the range and should not be added as inners to the relation.
Did you instead want to add the inners as holes to the wooded area instead?

This changeset also needs reverting to correct the NP boundary.