gotcha - thanks. Yeah, that was the only reason noticed the change: i was coming back to fix the postcode haha

Hey, have i been tagging addresses incorrectly? (are all the fields removed unnecessary because they're assumed to be inside an admin_level=* polygon?)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184680253

thanks for your patience. i've just submitted the updated keys. If i've still not quite got it correct please change them as you see fit - many thanks for your help so far

@mueschel
i've made the changes - could you please double-check them as the JOSM validator had warnings related to whitespaces/special characters

thanks! i'll make the changes now.

ah okay - thanks! I saw that discussion link at the bottom of the wiki but didn't see where they settled on an answer.

access:conditional=yes @ (license = AU:QLD:limousine)
seems most appropriate.

...so for the full lane tag it'll be the following?:
lanes:forward:access:conditional=yes @ (licence = AU:QLD:limousine)=yes||

---
Separate, but linked question: does it matter what spelling of licence/license used?

i'm not sure that's going to be accurate - a standard rideshare vehicle (like uber lyft etc listed on the tag wiki) wouldn't be allowed - it'd need a very specific licence + number plate per vehicle. I'm also not sure whether its a localisation issue? It'd only apply for vehicles registered in QLD - so its not a broadly applicable tag in the first place.
i'm not that stressed about it staying as a tag - it was just on another part of the road so i copied it because it seemed correct in the local context - but to put "rideshare" might be misleading? Is there a correct way to qualify/limit what type of rideshare is acceptable?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184115722

i was copying existing tags - i assume they were a reference to the local bus lanes being open to taxis and limousines (i.e. private car hire - similar to a taxi, but have their own special registration/licence plate here)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184115722

I couldn't decide how it should be tagged - but something lower would probably be better.

ahhh, my mistake - just fixed it

thanks for the link - the overpass query for each section is super handy
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133029762

ah okay, sorry about that - it should be fine :)

I've merged it into a relation - next time just feel free to do it if you think it will improve the tagging coherency :)

sounds good :)

Have you imported any new boundaries yet?

i'm not sure. I was only looking at satellite imagery & traces and would have only moved that node to keep it next to the path. if you doubt its still there feel free to remove it

Hello!
My previous review of your changeset was wrong, so I'm changing its
status to unreviewed on OSMCHA. Sorry for the error.
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/55252846

alright, sounds good - i was just concerned you had removed the whole way, rather than tags :)

Hello!
I reviewed your changeset on OSMCha and it looks great!
Thank you very much for your contributions to OpenStreetMap!
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/55253135

Hello!
Thank you very much for your contributions to OpenStreetMap!
I reviewed your changeset on OSMCha and found some errors or elements
that could be mapped in a better way. Feel free to message me
to know more about it or visit http://learnosm.org/ to get started.
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/55252846