My understanding is ...
Highway=crossing used for a footway/cycleway crossing a road.
Where something crosses a railway then railway=crossing should be used.

HI,
It is normal to reply to these comments.
Not only did this break the relation for Brisbane Waters but also 2 tree areas.

Please take more care particularly about deleting things. And some response would be appreciated.

Hints for better changeset comments can be found here osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments#How_should_I_write_Changeset_Comments?

HI,
The 'Course Grass Nusery' has no main tag so it will not be rendered.
The appropriate tag is {{tag|landuse|plant_nursery}} with {{tag|plant|grass}}. The name tag is for names only .. and it this case the description alone is enough.
I have made the appropriate changes .. hopefully it renders?

Resolved.

HI,
The source is now deleted but avalible through wayback machine. The source is a map of cycling infrastructure that could be used to form routes.
The relation/2170756 does not form a route .. so I have deleted the relation. What cycling infrastructure that is in OSM I have left alone.

Hi.
What makes relation/19209644 Memorial Ave West Path a 'route'? It looks more like simple cycling infrastructure to me.

Hi
The multipolygon relation/20080108 does not conform to 'the rules'.
See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=151.55602&lat=-32.72784&zoom=19&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways

Me? I'd have each way with individual building/heigh tags .. but no address tags .. each of them would have some apartment number ..
I'd make a single node at the property entrance with the single address. If someone wants to detail the apartment number of each building then they can do so and delete the single address node.

Hi,
The residential area, way/1201063754, has 'shred segments' - see https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=138.60030&lat=-35.56541&zoom=16&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways

Looks like that area being excluded from the residential area is going to be a park. In general it is not required to exude things from residential areas .. to do so is a lot of work. So I'd not bother, the renders handle it. Simply map the outer boundaries and then map the parks, commercial and school areas etc.

Hi,
Welcome to Open Street Map!! Your contributions are very welcome, we have too few contributors in your area.

One hint .. the outer way of a relation should not have the same tags as the relation. So a relation with the tag natural=wood should not have the other way tagged natural=wood.

Hi,
There are a number of problems with these entries...
See OSMInspector .. https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=166.66692&lat=-77.84619&zoom=17&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways

JOSM validator reports
4 errors - ways contains segments twice
a number of warnings - 2 on missing tags *=construction without construction=*

Hi,
Two problems ..
the way/1463029879 (residential garden) crosses itself.
the way/1463029832 (residential garden) touches itself.
See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=115.99450&lat=-32.06603&zoom=18&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways

This was discuses in the talk list.
It is thought that map users first want to see the stand identification. The area can be determined from the location.

Hi,
I've made the Bibbulmun Wellington Spur Trail (7337865) relation into a contiguous route. Best attempt to guess where it goes in some section where there were multiple options in the disjointed OSM route. Please see if there are any gross errors. Kick me if you find any.

Hi
Where the bicycles use a traffic light controlled oedestrian crossing and there is no bicycle light .. then the tagg should be bicycle=dismount. Only where there is a red/green light for a bicycle can there be bicycle=yes such as at the Epping Rd to Pembroke St lights.

HI
Why seperate roundabouts into separate segments? If it is bacuse you thing a route should only include the individual segments ... well that is not necessary ... and can work against certain routes. Routing engines accept that a roundabout as a single osm entry will probably only use some segment of the roundabout. By separating the roundabout there is data bloat and I don't think it really help the routing engines at all.

Note I have made the route contiguous.

motor_vehicle=permit implies permit is ordinarily granted ... I think you mean motor_vehicle=private?

Humm...
These carry access tags of foot=yes and no for the rest of the tagged access ... would it not be better to tag access=no and let the foot=yes remain?

Hi,
Do you check these routes meet the OSM requirements?
The relation/4513980 has the ways in the reverse order...
OSM Inspector shows quite a few of these ferry routs are incorrect...
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=pubtrans_routes&lon=151.23079&lat=-33.84752&zoom=13&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=ptv2_routes_valid%2Cptv2_routes_invalid%2Cptv2_error_ways%2Cptv2_error_nodes%2Cptv2_routes_valid%2Cptv2_routes_invalid%2Cptv2_error_ways%2Cptv2_error_nodes

There, rendered on default map. Some of the enclosed features may not be there any more ... sculptures relocated?