No worries. If it helps I was out there on the weekend and double checked. It's a private residence. The landslide place adjoining to the north is still for sale.

Is that really a Queensland TAFE building? I thought the boat shed on the green was all there was.
I found support for this at https://desbt.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/11123/tafe-infrastructure-plan-redlands.pdf#page=7

oh, thanks! well spotted. i think merged the original campsite POI with the new area without checking its details

yeah, it's a supremely interesting structure, isn't it; I love visiting places like that.

I mean I know that the embankment used to be the rail line, and I could see that after the rail lines were removed there's evidence vehicles drove on it a lot. But to me the bollards indicate an intent for foot and bike, and that the vehicle access was short-term and is now unusual. I recognise that you interpret it differently: as a well-developed vehicular track that is now mainly foot/bike traffic. I'm happy with that and will leave it alone.

I was confused by the sign which I think uses lot numbers. there is a standard AS/NZS 4819 for even odd numbering. I think I'll wait until there are actual houses with visible numbers there...

I was excited when I saw that viewpoint and spent about an hour walking around looking for it. I was looking for a mound or elevated position with evidence of visitors. The closest was the tire stack overlooking the flats, but ... no one point in particular stood out.

The greater area is certainly photogenic but I felt that there wasn't a single viewpoint.

hi Jono... I walked most of the length and it seemed by bollards and lift gates that the embankment once was for vehicle traffic but it is now *looks* just for foot and bike.... that's what I tried to capture in the tags.

I suppose you're right that council vehicles could drive down it for maintenance the same way they do down concrete footpaths.

hmmmm so the more I think about it, I think you have something there about vehicles but I too am unsure how to represent that. please correct it as you see fit.

Hopefully all 5 are corrected now!

no, it's not working out for me... please help?

Hmm. I'm new to building parts.
I think I've fixed it by altering the relationship from part to outer (changeset/71299816). This makes them side-by-side elements instead of top-on-bottom... (which seems more 'right' to me???)

Thank you for your feedback!

Would you advise that I remove all the addresses? They did come from a "deduced" address list, which was a combination of databases. Also, for many exchanges their address is displayed on a sign outside the exchange, and it was this I checked against.

Regarding fibre;copper you're right. I should have done that.