There's too many conflicts for an automated revert, so I've fixed:

- way/54490663 street name on a power line
- way/1167362251 street name on a forest
- way/1111036712 street name on a construction landuse
- way/1167362242 street name on a construction landuse
- way/809948816 restored original trunk_link
- node/9404095695 traffic signals restored

way/1410857505 seems unlikely they would re-align this section after it was only just constructed?

roundabouts need junction=roundabout

I've added this.

Per prior comments, I've updated these to proposed roads.

It appears you're basing these edits soley on the DCS NSW Base Map and I assume other DCS datasets (as the road name does not appear on the base map, but does appear in addressing data)?

These datasets will include roads and lots that haven't started construction yet, as such unless you're basing your changes on other information and can confirm the status is otherwise, they should be marked as proposed roads.

I've made edits to update this.

hi please see osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property and osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

In OpenStreetMap roads on private property are still mapped but as access=private which is usually then shown on maps as a private road or avoided by routing.

I've reverted this change to restore the driveways, but also added the access=private tag.

I think these names should go on the airport not the terminal ie. on way/985743235

Thanks, I just changed this too leisure=indoor%20play?uselang=en which I think is a better fit.

hi, it's good practice to try ad retain the history of existing features osm.wiki/Good_practice#Keep_the_history

So the preferences is to update what exists rather than delete and re-add them.

A number of railway lines here have been deleted only to be re-added at the same location when you could just update the tags.

For some of the deleted sections like https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/94893247 it would be better to update the tags to clarify what's there. We have a vast range of lifecycle prifex osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix. For example are the tracks still present but currently disused, are they razed or removed or destroyed? Even if they are completly gone, you could still keep them as was:railway while image still shows them otherwise other mappers map re-add them from imagery.

hi could you please comment on the discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/melbourne-disused-rail-line-during-construction/132185

or actually since the public can drive, just access=yes (since for driveways it can be ambiguous without an explicit access=yes or access=private)

psv=* is an access key. psv=yes means taxi's and busses are allowed to drive on this road, however it's not needed since by default we assume highway=primary is access=yes, ie. anyone can access it, cars, busses, bicycles, motorbikes.

The tag doesn't indicate the road segment is part of a bus route, the bus route relation at relation/2733626 indicates that.

psv=*

I think it should be tagged based on what it is on the ground, I don't see why it can't be service=driveway and still be used by bus routes so long as it has the appropriate psv=* or bus=* access tags.

Nev, these were already added prior to this changeset, nlseven just changed the building types, which looks fine.

Thanks for fixing this one. There still exists an amenity=shelter here, just it shouldn't be conflated with the highway=bus_stop so I've mapped it out in way/1411345167

Thanks. For some of these I've used `addr:unit:designation=Shop` to try and retain that information that would otherwise be lost.

This tag hasn't been used yet, but is the best I could come up with.

I don't think it's a good idea to make changes based on transport plan maps, firstly mass mapping based on this is not okay from these copyrighted maps, secondly are you sure that these plans reflect the current reality and not future aspirations? even then why take their plans over surveyed data in OSM, if anything they could be used to check potential issues to add a note or do a ground survey to check.

I had to change way/206811740/history back to footway since there's no bicycle signage here.

hi what are you basing these changes on? In particular changing the roads from under construction to completed?

It looks like everything is changed to line up with the DCS Base Map however that will show roads which are still under construction or even not even started.

Actually I'm not sure since the other telescopes are tagged as man_made=observatory within the amenity=university.

It just doesn't seem right to tag the site as amenity=university since it's a dedicated research site run by the university but not a university where students go to classes or researchers have normal offices.

Should this be considered within/part of the Mount Kent Observatory complex?

https://www.unisq.edu.au/study/why-unisq/unisq-stories/research-stories/smartnet seems to suggest so, in which case we should extend way/516925285 to cover this site and then also tag man_made=observatory on that way.

Then this way could be tagged man_made=telescope + telescope:type=optical would that be a better fit?

What do you think?