Turns out that way/771395490 is no swamp on the LPI maps but another wetland without trees, see https://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/arcgis/rest/services/public/NSW_Base_Map/MapServer/tile/17/77855/121074

Because of it's saline input and the written description by the government I decided on saltmarsh for this treeless, often water-filled part.

The other one further up northwest is a reedbed. All other wetty areas are swamp because trees grow there. The part between the beach and the swamp is scrub because of it's low growing bushes.

Please do not stick to much to the LPI maps but trust your eyes and interpret the aerials.

Hi, let's check this in detail:

As of today, both of the LPI NSW Base map and LPI NSW Topographic map shown in JOSM present a swamp in that area.

So I added the 'LPI approved swamp', (way/771395490) a wood on the right hand side of the Moor Creek and some trails. Especially the 'Swamp Trail' from https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/parks-reserves-and-protected-areas/park-management/documents/khappinghat-nature-reserve and the text on page 9 of the 2019 plan which reads "Forested wetlands surrounding Khappinghat Creek and its tributaries include swamp sclerophyll forests dominated by swamp mahogany (E. robusta), swamp oak (Casuarina glauca), red mahogany (E. resinifera) and the paperbark trees Melaleuca nodosa, M. sieberi
and broad-leaved paperbark (M. quinquenervia). The saltmarsh complexes adjacent to Khappinghat Creek include areas of sedges, rushes and tussock grasslands dominated by bare twig-rush (Baumea juncea), sea rush (Juncus kraussii), common reed (Phragmites australis), samphire (Sarcocornia quinqueflora subsp. quinqueflora) and marine couch (Sporobolus virginicus). These wetland and forested wetland areas include Freshwater ..." makes me feel that swamp is not too bad.

The next paragraph deals with "shrubland, dry wallum sand heath and wet heath communities." which may also fit.

Please feel free to check the current mapping after the changes I made with changeset/80810033

On this matter I would be happy to hear your opinion again.

Surely you damaged the parks mapping. It was based on the On the Ground Rule, see osm.wiki/Good_practice#Map_what.27s_on_the_ground. As this page says, the local legislation should NOT be considered if not bound to reality.

If you do not have enough knowledge to accept a fence around a park as boundary of this park, then this is your issue.

While reverting your tagging I did you a favour and created a copy of your data with the parks 'legal boundaries' in changeset/80797958.

By moving node/7107923227 to the "legal" you neglected :
1. The sidewalk along the Bermagui Road
2. The footpath from that sidewalk to the western side of the Princess Hwy (below bridge),
3. The fence at the borders of the park and
4. The small stream at the eastern border of the park.

All mentioned facts above are clearly visible on the LPI NSW aerial.

Please repair the damages you made.

Now the natural=wood area you changed overlaps the residential area (way/371875703)
Please correct this.

With this edit a duplicate landuse tagging was created on the swamp 691952756 already tagged in May 2019.

Please correct your work.

With this edit you left the eastern half of the bushland formed by way/519186155 as wood.
Please complete your work and delete it.

After this edit the relation still has the error of duplicate landuse mapping made in #51195671
Please correct this.

With this edit a landuse=forest and a natural=wood was placed on the same part of the Jinjera Hill – By the same mapper who mapped the other forest two week earlier :-)
Please check your work before uploading and delete the double tagged parts.

After this edit your forest relation lays over an area mapped as residential, see way/538632435
Please correct your work.

This edit placed natural=wood relation/10668996 above the landuse=cemetry tagged since 2013, see way/233587980.
Please correct it.

This edit placed landuse=forest (nodes 7185664758, 7185665181, 7185665487, 7185666222 and more) on top of an area where landuse=residential was mapped since January 2016 (north of the nodes node/3964005596 and 3964005594)

Please correct your work.

This issue is closed now.

Die Kartierung am Weg scheint in Ordnung zu sein. Es gibt westlich des Weges ein Wasserbauwerk.

Beim Gewässer way/757863406 ist der südliche Teil klar. Wie genau es im Gebüsch aber weitergeht, müßte man nochmal klären.

>Bei Deiner Variante musst Du konsequenterweise auch die nördliche Waldfläche von der südlichen trennen...

Das tat ich. Nördlich liegt eine "Wochenendfläche" bzw. ein größerer Kleingarten. Südlich davon ist Wald nach dem Waldgesetz.

> Und solange man den Weg nicht flächig darstellt oder die Lücke mit einer anderen Fläche füllt, ist meine Variante akzeptabel ...

Verkehrswege sollten nicht auf Landnutzungsgrenzen gemappt werden.

>Was soll denn zwischen Wald und Weg noch sein?
Nichts, denn der Weg ist ein Teil des Waldes.

>Wenn die Fläche vom Weg losgelöst wird, dann bitte auch richtig. In der Realität geht der Wald bis an den Weg.
Wie vor, Der Wald endet an der Nordseite des Weges.

Die Sache ist jetzt so in Ordnung.

Additional area in question:
3. "Island" in the forest:
way/769786394

Hi All,

thanks for the hints. Answers for the open issues in detail:

@korolenok
>brownfield is improper for burnt areas.

This topic may stay open. My current opinion is to map the burnt houses as ruins:building=house and to add landuse=brownfield on top of landuse=residential or landuse=farmyard for the affected buildings only.

Tagging natural or agricultural areas without buildings as burnt has become worthless in the meantime. The grass is already green again.

>shape of cross

The cross remained it's shape but is now at another location, see
node/7185558052 and node/7185558053

I tried two relations to collect the effects of the September and the December burns in cobargo. Feel free to add your opinion at those changesets:
relation/10591125
relation/10686418

@warin61
> The power is carried on POLES not TOWERS.

Ok. I thought that a high voltage lines are always hanging on towers and the lower voltage lines to the final customer are on small poles.

> The line voltage would not be possible to judge from the listed sources, delete these.

The voltage is clearly written alongside the high voltage lines in the LPI NSW topographic map. Please see it on the map near the pole node/7117256616

@Data_Working_Group
I did take notice of the responses to talk-au. Please see the answer to korolenok above. You may have noticed the very crazy approach back then: osm.wiki/Project_of_the_week/2010/Aug_15

@aharvey
An alternative to =brownfield may be =construction. But this would neglect those who have started rebuilding their homes already. See way/764635325

>Where you changed the fire station from an area to a point,
The Krauts map amenities as node primarily. Additionally the surroundings may get building=fire_station; landuse=commercial but they do not carry further information like branch or telephone numbers.

@all
For further discussion about a specific topic please use another changeset and not this overcrowded one.

>When does ...
A scheme for mapping official landuse to OSM types has been developed for Europe, see osm.wiki/Corine_Land_Cover

>Wider audience ...
Please initiate this discussion on talk-au.

Areas in question:
1. The are with some trees between the forest and the meadow: relation/10591122

2. The area below the power line with trees regularly chopped off: relation/10591123

So when you personally have "doubts" about the work or the vision of other people, what are you doing?

Do you delete their work to create blank spots on OSM?

Or do you share some confidence that others may know what they do?

Scrub is the tag used when there are some trees, some grass and something else and when it is not forest and not grass. It is as simple as that.

The LPI topograhic map has a 25 x 25 m block size to distinguish between Closed and Open Forest and Woodland (combined with some contrast optimization and compression artifacts). That should be fine enough to map some forest.

> will always be blank areas on the map.
In our case here the blank areas were actively created by deleting the former tagging.

Scrubs seems to be a very fine tag for this areas, see natural=scrub The third paragraph reads: "In addition to use on natural habitats, natural=scrub is often used to tag semi-natural and semi-developed areas, such as areas of uncultivated shrubs along highways, and scrub in abandoned pasture which is transitioning back to forest."

The area between your forest border and my eastern meadow has a size of 8,6 ha. Why shouldn't such an area be tagged as scrub?