No worries.

The Linked LWG determination doesn't really apply here, that's saying it's okay to source the opening hours of a restaurant A from their own website, then the opening hours of restaurant B from their own website and so forth. I agree that's fine, I do this sometimes too.

If someone collected and maintained a bunch of data into a database and published that it could still be covered by copyright or in some jurisdictions database rights, so we won't take that collection of data and add it to OSM. It doesn't matter if that is "factual" data it still can be copyrighted or at least the publisher claims it to be copyrighted until tested in the courts. We're not going to push those limits in OSM, if there's potential to be an issue we'll play it safe.

I think the question is then is taking selected data from http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/radar/info/nsw_info.shtml considered taking a collection of data (which we generally can't use) or considered a single data point (which we could use). I'm not sure, it's just that looking at the amount of data added in this changeset it certainly felt like mass-adding a whole collection of data.

I can see data about antenna polarisation, elevation, frequency, height, manufacturer, power rating, reference codes, start dates, tower type/construction and names.

I want to see this data in OSM, but I don't want to be testing the limits of copyright and risk the reputation of OSM and assurances we make about the data to downstream users.

The WMO site makes no mention of copyright, and therefore has full protection and isn't under an open license.

node/7373994785 is not T2 that was already mapped at node/6552009371 I've reverted that change.

Are you sure Mama Mulan which was mapped at node/5729379221/history is closed down? I believe it's still there...

node/5583351392/history is not "Pho Thin" that's already mapped at way/916580297 I've reverted it back to disused:shop

node/6715096557/history isn't "Colourful Yunnan", that's already mapped at way/916580298. I'll revert it back to disused:shop.

hi Kyle, looks like you changed https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/1090861305 to highway=cycleway, I just confirmed it's still signposted as "bicycles dismount" and I can't see anything to indicate it's a cycleway (I think if there is a cycleway that has a small section as bicycles dismount it could still be highway=cycleway + bicycle=dismount, but I'm not sure if that's the case here). What was the basis for changing it from footway to cycleway?

The way originally split from https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/90252662 when in 2010 it was created with highway=footway + lcn=yes.

I'm not sure which route it's meant to be part of but I think based on the bicycles dismount signage and no other indication it's a cycleway highway=footway is a better fit.

I'm of the view that highway=footway should be used for walking paths that have been built and highway=path for just a worn path from usage. In particular if it's signposted as a walking path it gives strength to being higher importance and therefore highway=footway compared with highway=path.

However I realise that other mappers generally use highway=path for any bushwalking track and highway=footway for essentially a non-bushwalking track.

Based on surface=metal and this being part of the major Coastal Walk track, I think highway=footway is better to raise the ranking compared to more minor walking tracks.

Is all this based on WMO Weather Radar Database data? What license is that data under? If we are mass adding their data and that data isn't sourced from a compatible license then we likely can't use it.

I think a better changeset comment would be "remove name from river area as it covers tributaries of the river with other names", I assume that's the reason for removing the name?

I think this change is okay for this reason, though I think it would be better to split up the area so we can have a named river area for "Georges River" then another named water area for "Salt Pan Creek" etc.

thanks, I also added informal=yes to mark it as informal.

This is a good start. For routing to work here you'll need to connect those footpaths across the road with a highway=footway + footway=crossing, ensuring there is a node where the footpath and road ways cross.

Thanks. I added a few extra tags to mark it specifically as a "multistory carpark under construction" rather than just a general building under construction.

looks good. If building=detached is more specific as a "freestanding" type of house (since building=house covers semi-detached or terraced too) building=*

Typically we'd just use operator:type=government regardless of the level of government, but operator:type=council does have some usage but it may be unclear since it might be confused with other "Councils" eg. "Cancer Council"

operator:type=*

I've added `operator:wikidata` as this helps data consumers associate more information about the operator from wikidata.

hi, why were the wikipedia and wikidata links deleted? They appear to be correct.

I assume what happened is the iD editor didn't let you change the name preset due to the wikidata/wikipedia tags being present? In that case the correct solution is to manually edit the tags to update the name without deleting the wikipedia/wikidata tags.

As such I've restored the deleted tags.

In OpenStreetMap edits like this aren't "requests", instead they immediately update the map, there's no review. Other mappers map choose to review your changes and request feedback or after discussion if we feel the changes are detrimental we might revert or roll back changes.

In this case your changes look good, and in line with community mapping standards. We get a lot of people come in and delete the whole road/track/driveway just because it's private, but we don't do that in OSM osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F so thanks for actually marking it as private instead.

Reviewing the changes here https://osmcha.org/changesets/124716683 significant parts of the changes here created two parallel ways for different lanes of the road where no physical separation exists, and therefore I've reverted some of this changes back to the prior state around where Frenchs Forest Road East meets Warringah Roah. Prior to these changes, Frenches Forest Road East was not split into two directions at the intersection and it's much cleaner and simpler if we don't split it for a simple minor median but if you insist we should then I've left it in tact for this location only.

The Bus Only turn lane was already mapped with :lanes tagging in 2020 and this change left those turn lanes and lanes=4 in tact while also adding a parallel way for the turn lane which is invalid.

Thanks, if it's not open to the general public, but only those living or working within the community you could set access=private, similar to how it's tagged further along.

are you sure these are already built or possibly still under construction?