Okay but according to the wiki "boundary=protected_area is used to mark boundaries of protected areas", that's a very broad definition, but "Wiildlife Protection Areas" seem like they should come under this tag.

I don't have any knowledge of IUCN, I simply read the documentation on the wiki for protect_class and found the best match, like any other tag in OSM.

I guess it also comes down to is protect_class meant to be for the officially assigned class, or is it just an OSM tag which can be applied.

In the same way that we set sac_scale on walking tracks here even though nobody is assigning official sac_scale values to tracks.

Sorry but I still don't understand what this has to do with iucn.org.

Yes these may not be in CAPAD but that doesn't mean they aren't protected areas for species protection.

Regardless, the signage present at these locations indicates these areas as "Wildlife Protection Areas" with details showing the intent by the council that they are for the protection of native animals.

At a minimum could the backyard trampolines way/1356111675/history be tagged access=private to indicate they aren't part of a public playground.

https://www.northernbeaches.nsw.gov.au/environment/native-animals/wildlife-protection-areas

> Wildlife Protection Areas are public places set apart for the protection of our native animals and their habitats under the NSW Companion Animals Act, 1998.

From protect_class=*

> Habitat/Species Management Area (IUCN Category IV): "...aim to protect particular species or habitats and management reflects this priority

Either way it's still a protected area and protect class 4 seems the correct class. If there's no objection I'll reinstate it.

I missed this change earlier by why was boundary=protected_area removed? It's a Wildlife Protection Area with protection_title tagged and should have protect_class=4.

2. It should be footway=crossing for the crossing sections not footway=sidewalk.

Please try to keep the history osm.wiki/Good_practice#Keep_the_history of objects

This way way/898239664/history could have been retained and amended into the new way you added way/1356111699/history

Keeping the history makes it easier for others to understand the history of changes and to attribute those who contributed.

I'll echo TheSwavu's comments, this was already discussed. It was a conscious decision not to merge addresses onto other features on the map as part of the import.

Firstly there's different ways addresses can be mapped, as a lone node, on the building, on the landuse representing the lot, and the import took the simplest option leaving it to local mappers to decide the best option for each location.

Secondly, there is more risk merging to buildings, particularly in areas of high density, like narrow terraces the risk of mis-assigning address to the wrong building was too high so this was left to be done manually.

The notion that it requires cleanup to attached addreses to buildings in an opinion about how addresses should me mapped, it's also not incorrect for them to be simple nodes, so I reject that they require cleanup. You may improve if you like, but it's not required.

way/526335498/history

what's the reason for removing the gas pipeline way/526335497/history ?

Per osm.wiki/Abbreviations we try to avoid abbreviations in the name no in this case the name should be "Avalon Beach Surf Life Saving Club" without the "(SLSC)" bit at the end.

If you want you could tag short_name=Avalon Beach SLSC

Thank you. This is because I was using StreetComplete EE trying to edit tags directly without any field presets to guide me.

could probably even mark it as disused then with disused:highway=path per osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix#Stages_of_decay

reverted in changeset/161852842

firstly way/1302411156/history was added July 2024 Bing, and Esri imagery don't have dates, DCS is from Feb 2022. If you haven't done a survey and don't have more recent imagery, then don't delete. Or better yet ask first.

secondly, if you check the original changeset I listed the source as Sentinel, obviously you didn't bother to check this otherwise you would see the construction.

I've since confirmed the rough locations via a survey.

This is not the first issue where you've deleted things based on outdated imagery, please take more care, review the history of objects you're unsure about and consider leaving a changeset comment first.

Please see osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

Based on this guidance even if the trails have no public access, we still include them in OpenStreetMap data but with the appropriate tags setting no public access.

FYI footpaths should also have the footway=sidewalk tag

How did you trace or derive way/1326456127 since it doesn't appear on Bing Maps Aerial?

Actually I just realised I thought the tidal tag was meant to be used on any feature that is affected by the tides, ie. the full length of the waterway from tidal limit to where it ends at the ocean, but seems from tidal=* it should only be the small section between high tide and low tide.