Is Aston Hills actually a suburb, or just the name of that residential development? You haven't mentioned a source other than aerial imagery, something like this really needs one.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176135487

Hi, Bing Imagery shows the driveway on the other side of the building, did you use different imagery for this or should this be corrected?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175970625

All good, it happens!

Hi, you've added these tags to the building for the office, not to the caravan park site itself. The building and office tags should be restored, and the name, brand:*, addr:*, tourism and website tags should go on the way covering the whole park.

The colon should be before the two slashes, I'll correct it for you.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175790635

Hi, please don't add fictional information into OSM. The farmland here should be drawn as individual plots, and the name and operator should only be added if this is (real) publicly known information.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175480080

Hi, this looks pretty good, the only thing I would add is that it would be best to split the way where the tunnels are, and remove the tunnel=yes tag from any parts that aren't tunnels.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175604975

Hi, this seems like tagging for the renderer. Is this actually water, or is it meant to just be a wetland?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175139648

DWG revert - using copyrighted sources

changeset/175193863

I would probably also change those from highway=track to highway=service. They don't really look like tracks.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174804039

Then a tag should be used to indicate that other than the name tag.

The name tag in OSM should be the name signed on an object. The disused or closed (lesser used) lifecycle prefix would be the one to use for objects. For a route, I'd almost say that the route should just be removed if it no longer exists.

Hi, this shouldn't go into the name, there would be another way of tagging this (maybe something in lifestyle prefixes).
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174722445

That dataset is fine, and as long as that resource is confirming that the changes you made are correct, and not the document from visitlimestonecoast, then thats all good. Making edits based off what someone else has said isn't ideal, since you're still responsible for those edits and where they were truly sourced from.

The Limestone Coast resource likely wouldn't be allowed, unless they've provided it under an appropriate license.

For LocationSA, it'll also depend on which dataset you used. The base map layers there aren't usable.

Hi and welcome to OSM. One tip, if you select a way and press Q in JOSM, iD and RapiD, it'll square off the item. Always a good idea to do this with buildings.

You've also got some buildings that don't match up to their footprint, I've seen one that's smaller than the building and one that's got an outdoor area as part of it, buildings should match the outline of the building based on where the walls are, excluding verandahs.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174443623

Hi there, just wondering what criteria you've used for marking these as private, and what government dataset you've used? It's best to name the specific dataset so other mappers know exactly where the info was sourced from and whether it's usable by OSM.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174443850

This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 172078436, 172131769, 172201297, 172238114, 172369710, 172426600, 172484676, 172523621, 172545924, 172570520, 172595269, 172649057, 172705100, 172854576, 172879447, 173026377, 173150837, 173194718, 173219358, 173380374, 173522942, 173632517, 173724479, 173823975, 173833054, 173855380, 173899290, 173928728, 174026702, 174070407, 174108800, 174121592, 174135006, 174142117, 174145539, 174420977.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/174443403 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: incompatible source

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/174443403 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: incompatible source