I'm not sure it's best to cut out the atrium like this as a building inner. It's tricky because it is open air on the NE end, but completely covered by a clear roof and still contains escalators and ground, level 1, level 2 walkways around the outer ring of the atrium and overall I'd consider it still "inside" and part of the building.

I think we either

1. map the N/S buildings separately as building=retail then use building=roof for the atrium, or
2. map the whole thing as one building=retail (without an inner), then use building:part's within it to model the 3D void of the atrium.

I think (2) is probably best and models what's on the ground best.

We should probably also move the shop=mall attributes to another way especially since some of the shops are within way/550340851 but still part of the mall.

reverted in changeset/167763531

please only use permissible sources for mapping

Hi Google Maps Street View is not a usable source for deriving information for OpenStreetMap. See osm.wiki/Google

You can use other street level imagery providers built into editors like Mapillary, Bing Street Side and others.

As such I'll revert this road as your only listed source is not compatible.

See osm.wiki/Relation:route_master the route_master relation should have the route relations as members not the first bus stop.

The network should probably match the network of the routes

hi what's your reason for adding these addr:postcode and addr:country nodes around the place? There are a bit meaningless without any other address information and can be derived from existing boundaries.

according to relation/5627375 the post code is 2113 where did 2109 come from for here?

addr:country is not needed, it can be derived from the existing admin boundaries.

the postcode boundary at relation/16354215 says otherwise, is the postcode boundary wrong?

Did the suburbs change recently? relation/11675694 exists as "North Toowoomba" and the address suburb is usually inherited from this.

hi, Google Street View can't be used to derived data from adding to OSM, see osm.wiki/Google

There are street imagery providers you can use including Bing Streetside and Mapillary, these are available from within the iD editor, but these don't show any max weight signs.

If you're making this edit based on your ground survey that's okay.

hi and welcome to OSM.

When you say "Shared Path", shared between who? Pedestrians and cyclists? Can the public drive their car, or only maintenance vehicles or no one can drive?

Because your tags aren't quite right. highway=path implies you can't drive but you have motor_vehicle=designated which means this is explicitly signposted for vehicles to use.

it's not considered good practice to use the name tag to describe things see osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don't_use_name_tag_to_describe_things

If you want to provide a description to map users it's best to use the description=* tag description=*

otherwise you can use tags like sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking to describe sections you need to use your hands to get through sac_scale=*

Is way/1056843378 commercial? If so what kind of commercial, offices? Because now we have building=commercial + residential=apartments which can't go together.

According to https://www.tollambulancerescue.com.au/news/our-bases/bankstown/ "The Bankstown Base also includes The ACE Training Centre" so should be place the "ACE Training Centre" feature as a node inside relation/13778946/history ?

I've mapped the Toll Rescue Helicopter base as a osm.wiki/Tag%3Aemergency%3Dair_rescue_service as a node at node/12908879644 inside but think we maybe should swap them?

looks good

I'm not from the ACT, but if there are a few houses where people live here then that seems ok. There is place=isolated_dwelling but it looks like there are 5 houses here so hamlet is probably correct.

There is the District of Booth at relation/11911812 but that's just the district admin boundary, the place=hamlet can and should exist too.

It's possible mark this place=hamlet node as the centre of the district boundary, but I'm not familiar with the local situation to comment.

I'll leave them. I looked through the original contribution and it seems they were mostly from Strava surfing heatmaps, which is mostly just mapping the popular surfing spots. It just seemed odd seeing them mapped but the more I think about it the more I think it's reasonable.

near the fire hydrants, or on the fire escape maps throughout the building or sometimes within lifts are good places to look

It's okay, it happens. While it's nice to try and keep the history it's not essential, one can still attempt to reconstruct it via a lookup of the changeset looking at the deleted node's tags and the tags on the way.

Thanks, fair enough.

pretty much every beach along the coastline has opportunities for surfing, unless it's it has a specific local name you'd like to map should we really be adding sport=surfing off each beach?

furthermore, the "water" here is already mapped via the coastline, so we shouldn't double up with natural=water