possibly from the imagery this looks more like residential=terrace? residential=terrace

looks good

looks good

There is informal=yes for informal ways informal=yes however an informal highway=track seems lees likely than highway=path.

highway=track implies that it's physically usable by vehicles (might only be 4wd, or private maintainance workes, but at least someone could), so if that's the case here then that's fine.

I'd suggest to also tag access modes access=*

You said it's not blocked off, so maybe motor_vehicle=yes or permissive?

I had left this unconnected since it's unclear from imagery, even on Bing it's not clear, if anything Bing seems to show it going more off to the east. Since it seems people are very keen to try and fix this remotely without waiting for a ground survey, I'll change it to go where I think it most likely goes from imagery and add a note to check.

I just checked on the ground and it's clear that the existing route that we have coming down Hercules then into Victoria continues onto Havilah, as the signage is continuous throughout.

No rush. There was also a discussion recently on when lcn=yes should go on a way vs using a route relation at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/lcn-tagging-in-australia/123529/25 but I still not sure it's resolved.

Looks good

I tweaked a few tags https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/1364663766

In particular access=yes since it's open for all, but also added fee:conditional for conditions for free parking.

Also added park%20ride=*

I had added this to map the two bicycle route signage indicating from Havilah to turn to Victoria and vice versa from Victoria to Havilah. Perhaps instead we should just extend relation/6282345 to include Havilah as well? Then remove this relation I added.

hi you've tagged the whole stream as tunnel=culvert, are you sure that's correct? If the stream is open in some places, but channelled through a culvert in other places you can split the way and tag each part differently.

Looks good.

Though I know it's tricky when it's just the lane markings and no actual bicycle pictogram painted on the road or other signage, so I'll leave it to those on the ground here to decide.

We usually prefer to "map what's on the ground" osm.wiki/Good_practice#Map_what's_on_the_ground rather than what only appears on other maps.

node/11237813778 is not a ford, the footpath runs above the drain. I'll fix this.

This changeset has been reverted in changeset/163074921

hi sorry but I have to disagree here, based on my April 2024 and December 2024 surveys there is a footpath around the turning circle. This is not present on the 2022 imagery, so recent. When you deleted this what source/evidence were you relying on?

Thanks for improving this. Looks like you added the start in 2012 then I surveyed in 2020 and lost the track around the power line and had to bush bash out to Yanco Close, but I'd always wondered if there was a path to continue through somewhere.

Thanks for confirming you had it correct.

Please do add them on the wiki though.

As an aside, UPS was documented to use utility=power, but I don't think that's correct. utility=power was meant to mean this thing is part of the power network, ie. generation of power and distribution to consumers. Whereas these UPS cabinets are part of the traffic infrastructure, not the electricity network.

They should be power=generator + generator:source=battery (assuming they are batteries?) then utility=traffic/transport or something. I've added the power=generator to the wiki, but we should have a wider discussion about utility=*

Instead they should be