Yes, thanks, I suspect JOSM would be better for some of the stuff I do. I just could never get my head around it.

Thanks, I will fix.

Looks like it. Thanks. I'll fix it now.

Accidentally deleted a Natural Wood / Massey Creek SF boundary.
Corrected in Changeset #164878604

Okay, I've caused a relations problem on the 'natural wood' boundary for this whole area. I know where it is (around Massey State Forest) but haven't pinned down the cause yet. I will repair, unless someone else spots the problem.
Andrew (sorry).

Regarding the Glennies Creek power station. The station is actually further east on Noble Lane. Hard to spot but lines up with owner photo at https://www.clarke-energy.com/2011/glennies-creek-waste-coal-gas-power-station-australia/.
I've now added it and corrected the GC Mine site back to mine.
Andrew

I don't recall exactly, but I usually try to do enclosed areas as relations, eg the Fairfax walk carpark to the east has to be a relation as it's fully enclosed by the natural wood area. The other car parks to the west are also enclosed but with an accompanying grass area (yes, this then makes the relation tricky to edit later).
How else could enclosed areas be mapped?
I didn't do the Q Station resort grassed areas but the messy white boundary areas are the editor avoiding both shared nodes and relations. I would have done that with relations :) The water/pond and cemeteries around there should also be relations.
I haven't edited for a while so I may have the jargon and protocols mixed up.

I honestly don't recall. I was marking the De Grey river and disused mines in the vicinity so maybe the station was on a mine map I was using. There were also plenty of pre-existing De Grey clues in the vicinity, so probably just that.

changed to farm. thanks.

Hi Mapper47,
I am wondering why this path was deleted. It may cross private land, but as the path exists and people use it then I would tend to follow the advice found here: osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property
which suggests to mark the path as access=private. That way it is clear to mappers and users it is private.

Fixed! Thanks.
I 'calibrated' the aerial imagery from what I could see from the boardwalk. It's a reasonable match, but not perfect.

Fixed. Thanks.

iD reported these as 'nodes close to each other. do you want to merge' when I went to upload and I assumed no because they were different ways. I will look deeper in future.

Haven't been here and hard to judge from imagery. Most likely paperback swamp but appears to be infrequent inundation judging by adjacent cleared land. I added a note. Thanks!

Hi, could you point to a particular example? I couldn't find what you meant in this changeset. I have been refining many mine sites by expanding their definition to landuse=industrial=mine and adding details within that area. I don't recall changing or adding any railway yards though. iD editor does flag railway=yard as an error when it is a node on railway line and I often 'extract' it as advised (is it incorrect to do that?).
Andrew

Sorry about that. Must have had a brain explosion.

Hi, not sure which area you're referring to but I have been sometimes making relations (without holes) where there are a number of close areas that have a geographic connection - the advice on the OSM wiki calls these enclaves and doesn't discourage it. Note sure if that applies to the area you mention.
I was using 'grass' but now realise that has quite a narrow definition. Now using 'grassland' for something approaching a natural landscape or meadow for more agricultural pasture. Any advice for all the areas under power line easements? They are regularly cut back to a grassland state, but are not natural or pasture. Landcover=grass seems to be discouraged by the OSM wiki.

Thanks, the area=yes is a carryover from using the iD editor (create an area, add it to a relation, delete the area=yes tag) and forgetting to delete the 'area=yes' tag. In iD this is an efficient way of adding a closed way to a relation, but I sometimes draw a closed way instead. Depends on how big I think the area will be.
Does it matter if an isolated outer way is made part of an adjoining relation? I hadn't really thought about it being a problem, so long as the areas were close by and actually had some sort of geographic relationship.
I usually use DCS for the resolution but it is sometimes very indistinct for tree vs scrub areas, and Maxar can be better sometimes.

Hi, OSMI is showing ring not closed on way/1029600990 after a change yesterday and I can't see why. Not sure if it is related to the relation I originally set that up for that Meadow area.
Andrew

I'm guessing that my comments are specific to the iD editor. I'm not familiar with JOSM, but in iD when the 'area' tool is used to create geometries only the area preset tags are available (eg "natural wood" creates a natural=wood tag); likewise only linear tags are available with the line tool. If the line tool is inadvertently used to create a closed way and area presets are required then it has to be first converted to an area by adding an area=yes tag. The end result is the same as it looks like the area=yes tag disappears once the area feature is assigned (unless its part of a relation, it seems). See this issue thread: https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/27594/can-you-change-a-closed-line-into-an-area

I sometimes start an area with a line and then want to convert the finished closed way to an area. The quickest way is to add the area=yes tag AFAIK. Which seems to be okay unless you then add it to a relation. iD warns by marking the internal of the way gray - and I didn't realise why until you just pointed it out.