hi, please don't map for the renderer see osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don't_map_for_the_renderer

moving the way to from it's true location just to improve the cartography isn't good practice in OSM, this is left to the cartography software to decide where it ultimately draws the ways, for example it could decide to offset the way in it's processing to solve this.

coincidentally I had just "fixed" the road alignments just now before noticing they were shifted in this changeset.

ah I can see you did that sometimes here, sorry I just saw the ones you didn't first.

In JOSM, under the More Tools menu there is a "Replace Geometry" tool, which when you select for example a node and a way will automatically move the tags from the node to the way, place the node as one of the way nodes (which helps with retaining the link between the node and way in the history). It's preferable to use that where possible over just deleting the node.

Did you recently survey this? When I did in June 2024 the new building at way/1296216101 was still under construction but there seemed to be a driveway (the one you deleted here) running parallel to the other road (the one you made oneway). Just wanted to check if things have changed on the ground since then.

Shared path as shared with pedestrians, off the street where the footpath would be? If so you'd need to at a minimum add foot=yes to say pedestrians are allowed, then segregated=no to imply that pedestrians and cyclists share the same space.

The outline you've drawn seems to line up with Sentinel imagery which shows it. Well done.

is it surface=fibre_reinforced_polymer_grate ?

OSRM is adding area routing, so hopefully this will soon be not needed (maybe once enough routers follow too)

the ballot thing really depends when you want to visit, it's only for peak times, other times you can rock up and by a day pass at entry.

I've updated this to motor_vehicle=yes + fee:motor_vehicle=yes. To say that anyone can drive here if you pay a fee. In particular it's open to the public which I associate with access=yes. access=private is a very strict access value usually for staff/maintenance/the owner only. I think access=permit is a bit different as you really can just buy a entry pass at the gate (when it's not peak times) and access=permit implies I need to organise a permit before I travel.

What do you think?

https://www.holtestate.com.au/bhp1

Thanks. Okay I won't change anything, but just going by their website it does seem like "Derwent Ferries" would be better and more understood by users for the operator tag.

PS. This is why I like to tag `operator:wikidata` as well, because Wikidata has more flexibility to record the ABN, etc. which can then be used to lookup the entity structure and different names.

hi, where did the ferry operator "Navigators" come from? According to https://derwentferries.com.au/travel-info/ it seems like "Derwent Ferries" is the operator?

Thanks for improving this. Generally addr:suburb, addr:postcode and addr:state aren't needed as they can be derived from the admin boundaries, indeed when we did the import of these addresses it was decided to intentionally not include suburb, postcode and state.

hi, what happened to the building? I see you've removed building=yes, but still have the building:levels tag?

If the building is no longer there, then what's there now?

ok, but we can't use Google Street View for mapping in OSM, just your local knowledge, surveys or sources we can legally use.

I've reverted this changeset in changeset/141628045 since it had incorrectly dragged a node to the wrong location.

While okay to map it as a node or on the main office building, I think where possible it's best to place the tags on the whole site area, as this then captures all the motel buildings and grounds. I've made changes here to do that.

If you feel it adds value, then by all means go for it. Someone might find it useful.

It's most useful for larger blocks where it provides information about which street and where exactly access to a residence may be from. Especially where a residence may be addressed to one street but accessed via another street.

ps this applies to all your other recent changes too.

access=no would imply it's unusable by any vehicle including fire trucks, emergency services, and NPWS maintenance vehicles. Is that the case? (this would be motor_vehicle=no) Or is it just closed to general public vehicles? (this would be motor_vehicle=private).

Additionally do you know the situation for bicycles/mountain bikes? Because a top level access=no also captures bicycles. If the signage says something no "no access, walkers only" then access=no + foot=designated would be okay, if the sign just says no vehicles or maintenance vehicles only then motor_vehicle=private + foot=yes + bicycle=yes might be better.

There's some documentation at osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Vehicle_Access

thanks, fyi it should be either disused:amenity=bar or amenity=bar but not both tags. it looks like from your edit you've added the disused by left the amenity=bar intact. I've fixed this now.