Hi again. This changeset deletes a mapped oval (leisure=pitch). Is there a reason for this? As for other changesets, it also deletes footway=sidewalk on 3 ways. Is there a reason for that too?

Hi again. This changeset has footway=sidewalk deleted on 7 ways. As for the other changeset, I'd there a reason for this?

Hi! This changeset has the tag footway=sidewalk deleted on three ways. Is there a reason for this? It looks like the tag does apply?

Is there a reason that fences are being deleted?

Hi, thanks for your contributions! Was the building to the south deliberately deleted? In general it's preferred to adjust existing ways/nodes rather than deleting and remapping. This maintains history of the object.

Thank you!

Thanks!

Thanks for the additions and updates.
Is there a specific reason the website:rfnsa tag was removed?

Thanks for your contributions!
I've moved the names to addr:housenumber and added addr:street . Happy mapping!

Hi ivanbranco,
This is testing my memory given it was 2y ago, but I think it would have been a large old dead tree that stands out as a landmark particularly given its location near the path and viewpoint. I'll try to go out there again soon and confirm.
I think I may have used dead_tree as a value in other cases but tagging around that hasn't really standardised.

Hi, Why is the name for Onya Bike deleted? Has it changed name or is the shop closed?

Please don't delete trees and replace them with tree rows.

It would be appreciated if next time you did the comparison with existing osm data before importing. It's not nice to be deleting a whole bunch of objects and assuming that the import is right and that existing osm data is wrong.

Just confirming that Taj Agra Belconnen is indeed open again and I have undeleted it.

This change seems a little heavy handed. At the very least it would be useful to have a meaningful changeset comment so the motivation of this mass edit would be clear.

Note that this is definitely not the Bradfield scheme. The proposed height of the dam is too low for that, and some are upset about it. Note that I don't plan to map any other proposed features (e.g. the extent of the dam and location of agricultural areas). This is the minimum needed but also sufficient to put Hells Gates in context.

Looks like there's an inconsistency in the wiki because the lifecycle page lists both proposed and planned as "Planned, with a high likelihood of being constructed" osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

Yep, it's downstream near the planned central and northern agricultural area districts. The planned southern district agricultural area extends all the way to charters towers

I haven't fully understood lifecycle prefixes, so happy to take your advice on whether it should be planned.
I mapped it so that there is a reference point around which to map other landscape features, in light of the new $5.4B election promise (while recognising approval processes still have a lot to do!)

Happy for you or others to add detail. Thanks!
I'm just trying to move from a blank map because if Hells Gates Dam goes ahead there's going to be a lot of change up here, and OpenStreetMap can potentially play a role in making that change visible.