Wie in der Quellenbeschreibung aufgeführt, habe ich unter anderem meine Großmuttter befragt. Sie hat Teile des Weges vor einigen Jahren erwandert.

Falls mehrere Beschilderungsvarianten vorhanden sind, habe ich nur die auf der Webseite vom Tourismusverband hinterlegte Route genommen.

Für den gesperrten Südhangweg wird wohl eine Umleitung vorhanden sein, die von Wanderern begangen werden kann. Da sehe ich keinen Grund, die OSM-Relation zu durchlöchern. Falls gewünscht, kannst Du die Umleitungsstrecke gerne nachtragen und sie per desccription hinterlegen.

Siehe auch: changeset/90157415

Der Kreisel am Wasserwerk war etwas "unrund" nach dieser Bearbeitung. Ich habe ihn grob gerichtet. Aber schau bitte nochmal nach, insbesondere nach diesem Weg: way/79308897

Die Relation ist mehrfach unterbrochen, d.h. unvollständig, siehe http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=6087428

Umfangreiche Arbeiten an Relationen sind mit dem Online-Editor iD kaum zu leisten. Empfehlenswert ist JOSM mit seinen integrierten Kontrollfunktionen vor dem Festschreiben in der Datenbank.

Die B217 ist zwischen Springe und Ronnenberg keine Kraftfahrstraße. Die Kraftfahrstraße beginnt erst an diesem Punkt: node/1998372760

Existiert die Haltestelle "Drage, Krummer Weg" nicht mehr? Vorläufig habe ich den noch in der Straße vorhandenen HAltestellenpunkt dort wieder in die relation/1306726 aufgenommen.

Probably the boundary is correct at zoom 18.

Compare some titles for this region:
Zoom 18, border far westwards:
https://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/arcgis/rest/services/public/NSW_Base_Map/MapServer/tile/18/152603/242177

And zoom 19, border at the watershed:
https://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/arcgis/rest/services/public/NSW_Base_Map/MapServer/tile/19/305207/484355

The Acacia Creek has several side streams. So this deletions were partly reverted in changeset/82218026

What is bad with the current state of the objects in the map?

You ask me to explain why overlapping areas are bad?

Please see: https://josm.openstreetmap.de/browser/trunk/resources/data/validator/geometry.mapcss#L185

"Overlapping areas" are in principle bad and therefore marked as such by any reasonable editor.

A piece of land should not have landuse=residential and landuse=forest together. Logically landuse=forest is the same as natural=wood.

Hallo, die Bearbeitungen in Sachsen und in der Antarktis liegen ja doch sehr weit auseinander. Wenn die dann in einen Änderungssatz gepackt werden, liegen Ostafrika, Indien und Australien komplett mit im betroffenen Gebiet. Naja.

>Way: Finanzamt Hameln (100575712)
That is not the name of the building but the name of the governmental agency in the building.

Its not the farmyard nor the farm house nor the barn to be named, but the geographic locality.

Unfortunately the Australian Tagging Guideline are lacking from the information how big an "isolated_dwelling" can be, see place=farm

Please do not create overlapping areas. I revert this changeset in #81567266

As said, I added some sources on the fence mapping to the OSM. After downloading relation/10703889 the relation and it's members the sources are easily selectable with this JOSM search query:
(child (type:relation id:10703889) OR child (child (type:relation id:10703889)))

Riverbed is where no plants grow. LPI NSW aerial was used for the creek.

Neglecting overlapping areas is an issue, https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2020-January/013535.html

Seems that you have switched off a lot of your validator. Didn't JOSM throw a warning for the overlapping building conflict on way/759930996/ ?

Why do you switch off the validator and downgrade the quality off your mapping?

Yeah, Bing shows a dam on the left hand side of the "whole" and the base map a water collection.

The tree area on the park needed an own OSM aera to avoid the "overlapping areas problem" like here changeset/80872208

I consider the effects and the aftermath of the December 2019 bushfire as historic for the town of Cobargo.

Correct. It is the site of the winery.

"addr:housename=Breakfast Creek" is set for the house and it looks pretty fine.

No "address name" is set. The whole postal addressing of the house in OSM fulfills the scheme: addr=*

I named the farmhouse according to the Karlsruhe Schema.

> it was pointed out that the fence is not visible on imagery,

I could see the surroundings of that special fence on long parts. The contrary opinion – invisible fence – is also correct but luckily only for smaller parts.

Please take notice from the fence edit I made the day before. It was based on the knowledge that the fence must be somewhere at the border.

The first try was the border crossing at Collins gap with an already mapped cattle grid, see node/7205341210. But the aerials showed only some 20 m of fence south of the buildings.

The first crossing where Mapillary showed the rabbit sign was the Border Road near Killarney, see source of node/7205325473. With other Mapillary photos the fence situation on that crossing became clear. I was able to map the fence 3.5 km eastwards and 15 km westwards. And then I stopped mapping because of lacking visibility of the surroundings of the fence in the aerials.

The LPI NSW Aerial for node/7205341210 shows the problem clearly. With todays training it is clear that fence is 71 m further up North from this node and that the last segment I mapped was a private fence.

The next day I found the "Rabbit Fence" Road and that lead to the Granit Belt Drive near Cotton Vale. Again good On the Ground image https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo&pKey=i3QCjdFP4wrPeQvf6IEs2w showed the fence. The next farm to Northwest also had a cattle grid on the driveway so it became clear on which side of the road the fence is.

Unfortunately I did not map all those minor points with the first upload. After writing this reply I will add the clues used for mapping and come back to this when ready.

I therefore hold the position that either the fence itself or at least its surroundings are visible on large parts.

>so how are you determining the exact geometry to use?

I did not mapped the 'exact' geometry, I mapped a guess where the fence probably would be.

Currently nobody knows where the fence is. We only have the data from the agricultural department (Thanks Mike!). But this data makes the problem even worse. Because on small parts of my guess are better than their data. It seems to good to be only a guess.

As the Lineage descriptions history tells, the data was made in 2008 with Garmin GPS (5-10 m accuracy) ???? and in 2013 'updated' using Aerials from 2013.

So the agricultural department did the same that the other fence mappers and I did. They mapped aerials.

Unsurprisingly the results are very similar.