hi, in this changeset you've just shifted the building and river so they don't overlap, but that's not correct because in real life they do, the building is sitting over the water. I belive we should revert this change.

ps. you can enable the "DCS NSW Land Parcel Lot" from JOSM Imagery to show lot boundaries.

Thanks for confirming this. I think given the placed barrier and signage then it's correct to mark as access=no as you have. I think at some point it could be further downgraded to abandoned:highway=path which means it won't usually show up on maps built with OSM but will still be present in the database.

Thanks looks like a positive outcome here way/1255574200/history

I think what @philt3r is trying to do here is mark houses which have an electricity connection from the grid. I think that would be okay, you can observe this from overhead wires from the street, although that doesn't work in areas where the network is underground.

I think it's useful data, but perhaps the specific tags need discussion, and we need to ensure we're not using copyrighted data sources from Essential Energy.

Looking forward to hearing back from you @philt3r

I've fixed the dragged node, and removed the power:meter since this is likely from the stated copyrighted source.

hi could you explain how you've determined these tag values?

hi I've re-instated this but used the abandoned lifecycle prefix, since there is still a faint painted outline of the netball court, but given the faded paint and the parking lines seems unlikely still in used.

Yeah I think based on your knowledge here reverting back is best, and possibly adding informal=yes.

I've fixed this now.

Hi, this track you edited has been recently deleted, did you have any local knowledge you can add?

way/12555742

Hi, this track you added has been recently deleted, did you have any local knowledge you can add?

way/1255574200/history

hi and welcome to OSM.

Please see osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Legal_Access

OSM can contain data for sanctioned, informal, and closed/illegally constructed paths and our guidelines page explains the reasoning and what tags can be used to communicate the exact situation on the ground to OSM data consumers.

Essentially if there is some physical evidence on the ground, then it can be mapped in OSM. If there are track closure sign, or other substantiated sources indicating no access we can mark that with access=no, and possibly mark the track as abandoned or disused if formally closed off for rehabilitation.

Further you can use informal=yes to indicate it's not a formal track.

hi please note that the source you've used here expressly says

> Essential Energy retains all intellectual and industrial property rights which exist or may exist in or with respect to the information or material. The information or material must not to be copied or distributed by you to any third parties

But regardless, by default works are copyrighted and that means we're only able to use specific sources which we've confirmed are able to be used in OSM osm.wiki/Australian_Data_Catalogue

We'll need to remove the data you've added from this source.

Unfortunately Landgate don't release their data as open data so due to copyright we can't utilise it in OSM. Safest to check the street signage via a ground survey.

Looks like you may have already found osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Paths because you're tags are close.

What you have is pretty much it, except you got the key=tag a bit mixed up.

We write key=tag so left part is the key and right part is tag, it should be abandoned:highway=path not abandoned=highway=path as you have.

See also abandoned:highway=*

Okay, I think using `addr:unit` makes it more compatible with existing tools, just think we should have some way to capture the unit type/qualifier/designation.

A shame to loose the address type qualifier, I know for the Vicmap import we dropped this due to complexity but in this case it was surveyed.
I'm also not sure if there are some mixed used buildings with commercial and residential that would have both Shop 1 and Unit 1 within the same address.

I think it should be okay to do `addr:unit=Shop 1`

addr:=**#Detailed_subkeys mentions in the US there is no consensus on including the designator

Thanks for replying, all good.

I just checked via survey and made some tweaks.