>Source of the path 'Sculpture Walkway'.

You can see the bridge over the drain in the LPI aerial.

'Cobargo Apex Park' is the common name for that area. It is local knowledge.

The boundary is clearly visible in the LPI aerials.

Nobody uses 'Cobargo Town Park'. A web search for this term gives zero results. Seems that the LPI map guys are the only ones using it.

The sculpture walkway has it's name from the sculptures it is leading to. This is local knowledge in Cobargo. Formerly it was called Riverside Walk too.

You can see the handrail in both sources attributed in the changeset comment. No need for writing them down again here.

The residential area was last edited ten months ago. You edited the wood ten days ago. So you are responsible.

The overlap occurs were both areas touch each other, see osm.org/#map=19/-30.36203/153.07300

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