You can see the changes at http://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/30738624

Hi and welcome to OSM.

Further to my comments on your note. The access=no tag shoudn't be set since generally the public can access this bridge. From what I could see on albit outdated imagery there is no special pedestrian or bicycle signage, therefore bicycle/foot shouldn't be designated.

Also the name should be the street name, bridge name can go under bridge:name=*.

Hi Milk Point,

TomTom is not a compatible data source so we'll need to revert these changes.

Further there is a community consensus around many of these name=* values not actually being names but rather descriptions (description=*) or destinations (osm.wiki/Relation:destination_sign) which are generally mapped using other tags and not as the name=* tag. If you don't think that's right please post back and join in the discussion, but otherwise in line with the community consensus these changes will be reverted.

-- aharvey, on behalf of DWG.

"...so long as these documents are not offered for resale..."

OSM's license allows for OSM data to be offered for resale, therefore the Metromap Terms of Use are not sufficient to use their imagery to derive data for inclusion in OSM.

highway=track is for roads, these aren't roads, they are mountain bike tracks. But yeah highway=track doesn't imply quality of which vehicles that can use it. These already had mtb:scale:imba, but that alone can't be used to tell if it's a mountain bike track or not.

what's your source for the building type changes?

highway=track is for "Roads for mostly agricultural or forestry uses." (highway=*) ie. for roads which you can drive a motor vehicle on. This is a single path track constructed for mountain bike use so highway=cycleway is best in my opinion, but I understand that cycleway is contentious, as an alternative we can use highway=path + path=mtb. I've added the path=mtb and restored to cycleway for now.

The bicycle access and highway classification are two independent settings. https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=543018103351921&focus=photo makes it abundantly clear that bicycles are only forbidden from that point onwards, so bicycle=yes can still remain up until that point. The issue that bicycles have no where to go/exit at that point is one routers solve and not something we should address in bicycle=* tagging.

I agree that the distinction between motorway_link and trunk here is debatable, but due to the length and service road joining Batman Avenue I would lean in favour of trunk until the tollway entrance sign.

Hi I realise this is an old change but what source/justification did you have for creating a bridge at way/596670708 ? Footways crossing waterways could be a bridge, or the waterway could be a culvert, or it could be a ford (creek crossing). Without a survey or very good imagery it's impossible to know. In this instance it's very unlikely to be a bridge and likely just a ford (creek crossing).

Since it looks like you've done this as part of a coordinated effort at Kaart (?), how widespread is this, were there other similar changes?

I also restored the deleted inner way from https://osmcha.org/changesets/120119176 which represented that this ridge area is excluded from the tree cover area from the Bing imagery that looks roughly okay. Unless you know that this area is covered with trees and you really did intend to delete it?

Hi welcome to OSM. In your edit here it looks like you've accidentally tagged the trees landuse multipolygon as a lake instead of the around the lake area that you improved the geometry for, you can see your changes at https://osmcha.org/changesets/120119031?filters=%7B%22users%22%3A%5B%7B%22label%22%3A%22markw11%22%2C%22value%22%3A%22markw11%22%7D%5D%2C%22date__gte%22%3A%5B%7B%22label%22%3A%22%22%2C%22value%22%3A%22%22%7D%5D%7D. I've fixed it by placing the lake tags on the proper area and restored the trees landcover tags.

I added the turn:lanes tagging and tweaked a bit per Maxar imagery which appears to show more recent changes to lanes changeset/120374112

It looks like you've added a driveway for the full admin boundary here at note/3157838#map=19/-38.01944/145.39789 did you mean to just map the driveway next to it?

For the ways like way/929237617 and way/929237615 I couldn't see any route signage if these have no formed path and no route signage then per osm.wiki/Australia/Walking_Tracks these should likely not be mapped. Are they part of any formal route?

I've updated this in changeset/119327254

It's generally considered better practice to use turn:lanes=* on the existing way rather than adding a new way where there is no physical separation, which does not seem to be the case here from what I can tell.

I'll update the tagging to use turn:lanes

hi I think it's better to use the hazmat=* tag, so hazmat=no for this. Is there a reason for using access:conditional?

This just looks like you're taking the piss. I believe Dian was just making the point that turn lanes shouldn't be split from the main way 100m up when it's just white paint that separates them, and instead you should use turn:lanes=* and similar tags. It doesn't mean you need to push the slip/link road so far that it's a 90 degree angle, for example https://osmcha.org/changeset/118114029 is a better middle ground in my opinion as it mostly keeps the way to the centerline of the road but avoids extreme 90 degree joins.

per note/2941525

reverted in changeset/117869922