Hi, welcome to OSM. You've added your business details to the node for 17 Alexandra Pl (in the middle of the common area), there is another node on top of Unit 1, you should use that one instead, unless your business occupies all 5 units. Feel free to draw an outline for your building if you want to replace the unit 1 node.

Hi, you've tagged residential mailboxes with amenity=post_box. According to the wiki they are "A box to deposit outgoing postal items", I think you want amenity=letter_box.

No need to be sorry, thanks for fixing.

Not sure why you removed the path though, it was good except you accidentally connected it twice with 2 separate nodes on the asphalt driveway, probably just an accidental mouse click. Let me know if it isn't clear what went wrong, happy to help.

Thanks for getting involved, you are doing great work, glad to see another local mapping.

Jono

Hi, you've connected this new path to the asphalt driveway with two nodes, this is obviously wrong, could you please fix it. Let me know if you are unsure how to.

On a related note, it would be appreciated to write useful changeset comments, you haven't changed any buildings in this changeset.

Thanks, Jono

Hi, you've dragged a node of Sandy Creek out near Kingfisher Road; and that area of vineyard you've mapped near SupaGolf hasn't been a vineyard for many years even though you can see an impression of rows, there is no trellis. Could you please fix those up, Thanks, Jono

Hi, I'm trying to understand (your changeset message is empty) why you've changed the access on this track I mapped to no access by foot. When I mapped it there were no signs indicating no access and it is a public road reserve, council even have a fancy timber gate to walk through on the SE end. Thanks

Thanks

Guessing there is a ford where there could be a culvert or bridge isn't ideal, you shouldn't map something just to hide the warning message about a highway and waterway crossing if you can't determine what is there from aerial imagery.

I had no problem with fords as nodes especially for small fords, it is actually suggested on the wiki for fords to be a shared node between highway and waterway as they are the same layer; the strangeness I saw was that you created a separate standalone node (referred to as a "point" in iD) which wasn't part of either way.

Hello again, did you see my comment?

Hi, what is the source for your waterways data? I've noticed over the last several months you've added quite a lot of good stuff to waterways right across the Redlands, much better than my guessing using local knowledge and looking at patterns of trees. However I am a little concerned that you aren't acknowledging the source of the data as I can't imagine you are surveying this amount and most is on private property.

I'd also like to point out the two fords you've added to "Teesdale Kinross Fire Line" in Redlands Track Park are wrong, both have culverts, the western one is huge and always has water so couldn't be missed if surveyed.

I'm still learning, but is there a reason you've created fords as points rather than using a node of the path/waterway?

Jono

No problem, thanks for getting it fixed up quickly.

Hey Andrew, you've accidentally moved the node from the intersection of Shailer Rd and Roselea St (Shailer Park) to just east of Bayview (Redland Bay).

Thanks Andrew, I understand copying anything requires permission I wrongly just didn't think it required the "importing" process probably because I was the one that originally drew these boundaries by tracing Bing.

Sorry for not replying sooner, my home internet was out for nearly a week with a line fault so was limping along on mobile data.

Since these polygons I've imported (and merged) haven't changed in the last 20 years (local knowledge) I'd like to keep them for now because I could just get a copy of the CC2.5 licensed file and do the same thing.

Let's continue the discussion on the mailing list as others are interested: https://www.mail-archive.com/talk-au@openstreetmap.org/msg11003.html

Thanks for the info, that would have saved me so much time researching outdated text. I hadn't seen that blog post, I guess I didn't really consider this an "import" since I was only mapping ways I knew existed but wanted to get more accurate geometry, I guess the Contributions page is misleading/wrong then.

I can now see you personally obtained explicit permission from Department of the Environment and Energy (AU Gov). Unless you tell me otherwise I'll read through all that info and start to follow the process to get community buy in and obtain explicit permission.

If I'm unable to get explicit permission in a reasonable amount of time I'll revert my edits. Once I get this sorted I'll make sure to update those old wiki pages. Thanks.

The QLD DCDB Lite dataset is listed on that page under the "Commonwealth of Australia" section. It has also been used for a decade in OSM, just search for DCDB on the wiki. That page says it was licensed under CC-BY 2.5, newer copies are now under the CC-BY 4.0 license, explicit permission was also granted in 2009 according to this page: osm.wiki/Data.australia.gov.au/Queensland#Legal_Usage.

I'd like to see it mentioned on osm.org/copyright along with CAPAD, still need to work out how because I read NSW might have opened theirs up too so they can join other countries.

I spent hours researching over quite a few weeks trying to make sure I was doing the right thing before starting, so please let me know if there is something more I can do.

Thanks nevw, I've seen your username on those complex multipolygons at Nerang Forest before.

Cheers (with a virtual beer), I think I understand now. For example, you'd use an inner relationship if there was a residential area in the middle of a national park, since it wouldn't actually be national park. All those multiploygon nature reserves with relationships that were automatically imported into SE QLD about 6 months ago really confused me and really get in the way. The more OSM editing I do the more I realise how much I don't know about tagging.

Apoligies for not being clearer, I understand the inner way not touching the outer now, I saw this one reported in OSMi. I was confused earlier because you said "...by putting the tags on the outer way" for both, however natural=wood needs to be on the inner way.

I've resolved the problem. I missed the sign naming the bushland Windemere Road Bushland Refuge, so have now separated the two areas.

I'd still be interested to get a response for my previous question for next time.

Thanks Warin61, I spent a good 30mins reading the wiki because I wasn't sure I was doing things right but couldn't really find the info I was after, I then came across OSMI to see if it reported anything and I realised it is batch updated, so fixed some other local problems.

Sorry I don't quite follow your description, I think the answer is "no". This park is half cleared, clear across the north and bushland in the south but as far as I can see on the ground is all designated as part of the council park.

This isn't the first time I've come across this situation but in the past just not modelled it. Would I just move the inner wood area just inside the west and south boundaries, or remove the relationship and OSM knows how to work out the Z order based on tags like it does for the dog park in there for example?

Cheers, Jono