It's further up the road where the cycleway has been taken up by construction works, but they close this segment since it's the last exit. So this segment really does have a cycle lane on the ground that you're not allowed to cycle in.

I agree, it's best to always map motorways with an explicit bicycle=yes/no. I always try to add this in when I can.

cycleway=lane doesn't say you can cycle here, it's simply saying there is a cycle lane infrastructure here, which is the case, but then it's overridden by a sign which says no bicycles allowed, ie. bicycle=no. It can happen as the cycle lane was built but then closed for an extended period due to construction works happening further down the motorway.

A bunch of these turn restrictions are not needed, so I've removed them.

I've reverted this until someone does a ground survey to re-confirm as based on all available information this is still closed to bicycles while the construction works are underway.

This looks good, thanks. The bicycle=no for the onramp way is valid per https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/i8PoC8URdMfrriKCUVSciw

See https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/wc31bMCC_qNGKHBDVlrb4g this is from April 2019 but unless you have more recent on the ground information, I don't see any reason to change this back to being open to bikes.

Sorry I realised your change is outside the section they say is closed, but still I think it's better to have better on the ground info.

Unless you've done a survey to confirm I don't think we should make this change see https://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/newsroom/2019/01/31/no-news-from-northconnex-on-m2-detour/ where it says "The cycleway is closed between Pennant Hills Road and Windsor Road" So cycleway=lane is there because on the ground there is physically a cyclelane, but it's been temporarily closed for three years hence why it's bicycle=no. So I think we should revert, are you okay to do that?

The public_transport=stop_area relation already includes the public_transport=station area way/679354513.

I can't find the diagram on the wiki anymore, but there used to be one that shows the difference between public_transport=station (the station from the passenger perspective) and railway=station (the station from the rail infrastructure/signalling perspective).

According to osm.wiki/Tag%3Apublic_transport%3Dstop_area only the public_transport=station way should be a member, not the railway=station way.

Is than an incorrect assumption?

Cheers, looks good to me.

What's the intent here? The wood is on the ground level so shouldn't have a layer tag. Things like bridges need the layer tag to know what's above each other.

Right but still I think to tag an address on the feature, the school should somehow advertise that address. If you want to add a separate address node I think that's fine, but to attach it to the school it should have a stronger connection in my opinion. Especially when there is contradictory information here that places the address on Brighton Boulevard, Bondi Beach.

Just bear in mind that the name alone doesn't determine the classification. You could have something named river which is still tagged as a stream in OSM due to it being smaller with less flow than you'd expect from a river.

What's your source for that? Their website has it as Brighton Boulevard in Bondi Beach, not Hastings Parade in North Bondi.

See the addr:suburb and addr:city now conflict, we should just use one.

Sorry I meant "If you disagree with the station being mapped as an area..."

node deleted in changeset/77674070

If you disagree with the station being mapped as a node please join the discussion on the mailing list https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-March/012428.html.

Per osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element we should just have one railway=station for Central station. I'll delete your node you just added again.

I've reinstated the building part as visible in the mapillary and aerial imagery.

I've converted this to one parking lot in changeset/77673515

railway=station accepts ways for railway=station and it's in widespread use with 9,000+ existing stations map as ways.

Further the wiki page says " railway=station should be applied to an area covering the whole station, or preliminary on a node placed at the center of the station area, from the passengers' point of view (i.e. near platforms)."

If you prefer a single node, you could take the centroid or pole of inaccessibility to get a node from the closed way.

As for where the boundary should be:

"While passengers only have the area around the station building and the platforms in mind, railway staff and railway enthusiasts think of the whole railway area which begins at the entry signal at one side and ends at the entry signals at the other side." so an area that covers the buildings, tracks, platforms, and extends to the surveyable station entrances and extends to the entry signal for trains is ideal. I agree that for the general public how far to extend along the tracks can be hard to determine, but I don't believe that means we should give up and only use a node.

I agree, the landuse says this is rail infrastructure, but we need to go further to say that all this land here is "Central" station.

I agree the relation which groups these features is very important as well, but I don't see how this means we can't also represent the station as an area.

I have no "service" or any other reason for preferring a polygon, it's simply that I believe the polygon is a more accurate representation of this feature than a point, and it's already well supported to be mapped as an area, and the fallback to a node is easy to implement downstream, so why not?