This change has re-added a building (way/1357998418) that was demolished 3 years ago, and removed the carpark that is now where the building was (way/1138314992). Was this done on the (incorrect) assumption that the aerial imagery is more up to date that OSM?

There is no visible signs of construction here. Should you have tagged as proposed instead of construction?

Why did you rename the bike path to Airport Road? It is no longer a road and cars and not allowed to drive on it.

Why have you created way/1324098953 as construction? What was your source for this?

Having ridden along the track I can say that it does not feel like an alley, laneway, or a service road - it is not providing access to properties. The design of intersections discourages cars from using it. Have you visited this path in person?

Why was this track changed to a service lane and named boundary road?

Can you use proposed= instead of construction= when construction has not yet started? OSM represents what is on ground truth and not future changes. Quoting from highway=construction "For projects being planned, where there is little or no evidence for them on the ground, avoid tagging them or use proposed=* instead."

Can you quote the source when making these changes in the future? It makes it much easier to distinguish between legitimate changes and vandalism.

Why have you created ways 1324118620 and 1324118621 as construction areas?
I've visited them and both areas are grass with no construction in progress.

What was invalid about these objects?
What makes you think this was "a training polygon"?

Most of these natural=wood areas are a single tree, and should instead be a single node tagged as natural=tree.

This change added buildings the no longer exist.

Yes, this residential area is real. The Bing and Esri aerial imagery show active residential development so expect the area to continue expanding. Is there a specific part of the residential area that concerns you?

Off Canterbury road you've added some driveways which have been incorrectly tagged as residential roads. Can you review the added roads, and change them to driveways where appropriate?

Thanks for following this up.

Probably not, but I don't have an appropriately licensed map to check. As I've added camp_pitch on way/862993302 I suspect this is correct. I don't know what way/27403069 should be called.

Where did the (beach) number 324 come from?

Was this edit supposed to be applied to a different trail? This trail is asphalt, not concrete.

camp_pitch looks like it is more appropriate than addr:housenumber.
I think having add:street would be beneficial here.
Parks Victoria refers to campsites by site number and the avenue they are on, so I see addr:street as beneficial. It also helps to indicate which road the pitch entry is on, particular for sites on a corner.

Oops. In amongst updating all the bus relations I forgot to tag it as a roundabout. Fixed now.