I named it Beaufort Road to Whitwarta and changed alt_name=Kadina-Whitwarta Road and added source=survey.

Ok thanks, I adjusted the tagging to reflect this

The Tarago Rural Fire Brigade is listed elsewhere, reverted

Please don't vandalise the osm

Please don't vandalise the osm

Hi
this road section now has both name and alt_name as Beaufort Road.
It was previously as follows from SA Govt source.
Tags
alt_name Beaufort Road
highway unclassified
name Kadina-Whitwarta Road
source AGRI
source:alt_name source=Data.sa.gov.au
surface gravel
It now changes name on crossing Mail Road.
Is this correct or would it be better to leave as it was with the name changing after passing Penna Road.
If you this your version is correct, please change the alt_name to Kadina-Whitwarta Road and alter the source of the name if name different.

...or the help site you used is not ideal.
here is a business site that is tagged well...
node/4607581052

Hi
you have not used any tags that the osm database users can interpret to utilise/display you business.
Please try again using this link to assist
https://osmybiz.osm.ch/#/18/-38.02354/145.31268 Do not use abbreviations

Hi, you are expected to accurately map the footprint of the buildings instead of the plot of land on which the building rests. The edges of most of your edit overlap and this is an error. You need to zoom in much further to accurately map the true outline of the building. If you want to map the outlines of each plot it is currently best done by mapping the fence lines between the properties.
Do you want me to delete the buildings you have mapped so far and start again or do prefer to remap those you have done?

That’s fine, cheers

Hi
Aerometrex Metromap is is not a permitted source for use in mapping the OSM
osm.wiki/Australian_Data_Sources
You would need to obtain explicit permission first.

Thanks. If there is a named development area or a neighbourhood at sub-suburb level you could still group all the individual blocks together as a mp, each with the role of outer, and name the development.

Instead of deleting this street it would have been more helpful to instead re-tag to highway=service + service=driveway + access=private
I expect the name was fictitious so that should be deleted if so.

There is no need to delete peoples driveways. All roads are mapped and those that are driveway are tagged with highway=service + service=driveway and if private also tag access=private.
I have reverted this edit.

What are you trying to map here?
It seems an odd thing to place in the driveway of a residential property.

vandalism deleted

Hi
inner parts of multipolygons cannot touch part of the outer ring so the way you are using them is not valid.
I think you don't need to use any multipolygons to map this area as it complicates the area unnecessarily for other mappers.
Each of the blocks could have a simple polygon and be tagged landuse=residential or you could have a much bigger polygon (including all the residential streets in the area) tagged as landuse=residential. Residential parks are often included as part of the residential area too but you can exclude those if you prefer not to.
Here is an area near me that is mapped with a simple polygon around each residential block of houses - there is no need for multipolygons to be used here.
osm.org/#map=18/-27.20985/153.01471
Although he could use a simple polygon, the mapper that did this has used a separate one member mp for each block because he will split the sides into multiple segments as he maps in far greater detail as in this area nearby.
osm.org/#map=18/-27.21190/153.02439

...but he is still only mapping each block of houses with the one polygon or multipolygon and not trying to combine multiple individual blocks in to a multipolygon.

If you use just a simple polygon for each block you no longer need to worry about duplicate segments either.

It may be easiest to revert the two problems areas I have left comments on.

Hi
there are further problems to fix here
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=153.09668&lat=-26.67230&zoom=13&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways
You seem to be proceeding without a complete understanding how multipolygons need to be constructed correctly in the osm.
You need to understand the info provided here on our wiki
There are also examples of correct and incorrect multipolygons.
osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon

I guess they don’t need to be open source but do need to be released under a licence that is suitable for osm or obtain explicit permission from the database owner/custodian to use in osm.
osm.wiki/Import
For mapping businesses, etc it is ok to use the address and contact details listed on their websites.