See https://osmcha.org/changesets/132567680/ or for example this way https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/266742611

You added access=private, which per my comment would exclude walkers. I'm not familiar with this area but I'd be surprised if that was the case, likely it is just motor_vehicle=private?

hmm https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=315960919940097&focus=photo shows a gate designed for vehicles, the track itself is wide enough for it, and certainly looks like it was designed for it.

access=private means it's not legal even on foot, which is very rare in National Parks, did you mean motor_vehicle=private which implies authorised vehicles only but walkers may still access it?

This has been reverted in changeset/134048467 as this is a track.

Thanks looks like the horse access is correct (I can't see any specific signage at the intersection, would need to check the main sign at the Perimiter Trail head) but https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=334410434732805 shows this is a track so I'll change it back to track leaving horse=yes.

this changeset has been reverted in changeset/134048348 as this is a track. Feel free to improve further with tracktype and smoothness tagging.

For the same reasons as in changeset/132700483 this changeset has been reverted in changeset/134048283

for these reasons this changeset has been reverted in changeset/134048252

For reference here is the trail head which only indicates foot and horse riding as designated https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1207284873025559

Same question as for changeset/132700494, these are wide tracks accessible by vehicles therefore should be track. Furthermore bicycle=designated implies some signage or markings designating them for use by bicycles, could you point out where such signage was found?

hi what's your justification for changing these from track to path? From memory and from imagery they are still wide access tracks accessible by 4wd for emergency services and maintenance.

Hi Morb,

As you can see at https://github.com/microsoft/Open-Maps/issues/49 the license and waiver to use this data has issues that need to be resolved. As such we must refrain from using QLDs DCDB data in OSM.

Hi Ant, can you share any more detail? We would like to be sure that you do have the rights to publish Metromap derived data without restriction. A permission to use Metromap imagery for your own organisational projects, is not the same as rights to publish derived data without restriction.

reverted in changeset/129039096 I've retained some of the later conflicted changes around Market Street being split into two oneways.

Actually I couldn't find any sidewalk=yes on highway=footway in your edits here. So based on the issues raised, I've reverted this changeset in changeset/129037612

I will note that it looks like many of these changes to were to address JOSM Validator issues. The JOSM Validator is strongly opinionated and flags many things which are commonly accepted mapping practices here.

Sorry just on my previous post, I see you've done both, so while sidewalk=yes on the highway=footway doesn't make too much sense, you've also removed it from some other road highways.

> highway=footway and sidewalk=yes does not make sense.

Agreed, but your changes remove sidewalk from road ways, not highway=footway.

Spot on Ds5rUy. While it's reasonable for data consumers to assume no as a default value, sometimes mappers will map it to be explicit if they have checked. Sometimes it might be easily mistaken as oneway=yes by armchair mappers so we'd add oneway=no to avoid it being tagged without a survey.

Generally a good idea to try and split the changeset into similar changes as it makes it easier in cases like this.

Honestly I can't see anything in this changeset we should keep and would suggest we revert it.

Hi Reiner,

Reviewing your changeset, you've removed footway=sidewalk from the separately mapped highway=footway. It was correct beforehand so this will need to be restored.

Separately mapped footpaths (highway=footway + footway=sidewalk) can coexist with the sidewalk tag on the road way, and in my opinion it's better to do both. sidewalk=*#Separately_mapped_sidewalks documents how you can mark it as exists and separately mapped if you want (sidewalk:left=separate + sidewalk:right=separate) but personally I'd still just do sidewalk=both.

The crossings were mapped as ways with highway=footway + footway=crossing, which is what you've removed, so your comment about highway=crossing on nodes doesn't seem to apply to your changes.

Keep in mind that the established and community tagging practices do vary a bit in Australia compared to Germany, we've documented this at osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths here we will use highway=cycleway + foot=designated + bicycle=designated for shared paths and guideposts or markings are sufficient to indicate =designated.