I can't see any comms tower here on Bing or DCS imagery, I believe the Base map tower here is the chimney just to the SW of the node, it's most visible on the Esri imagery.

also for bridge:name at least I thought it could be kept on the highway.

I read bridge:name=* which while it says it's prefered to use man_made=bridge + name it doesn't directly say that it shouldn't/can't co-exist with bridge:name so I'm not sure, I just thought that perhaps it's a good idea to retain it rather than delete it.

I checked the 3 main routing engines but none appear to use bridge:name.

way/172868419 we should leave the bridge tags on the way, it's helpful for routing engines to also announce the bridge name as part of the route without needing to process the bridge area and apply those tags to the way.

My understanding from the Royal National Park is that if you're driving straight through from Loftus to Otford via Audley and don't stop you don't need to buy a national park pass, however in that case the road is considered a public road excluded from the park. I thought the same applied to all other parks, so driving through Riverside Drive here without stopping doesn't need a pass, but I'm not sure... The national parks website seems to indicate that if your vehicle enters the park you need a pass.

node/6635352711/history and some others were just deleted, but I don't know enough about train signalling to know if it should have been...

I've added some basic documentation about the tag at railway:cbtc=* since none existed and the tag is in use, but it would be good if any further information about what the tag means or how it could be applied could be added to the wiki.

regarding way/962492246 I don't think there's any signage present indicating it's a shared path.

On my 2018 imagery https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=927023981175171 there's nothing visible, but it could have changed recently, I'll make a note to double check, but the council has a few paths around there that I think were intended to be shared path but they never installed any signage or painted any bicycle symbols... in which case they are only shared paths on paper not in on the ground. I'll make a note to check again.

I've removed all the superfluous psv=yes tags added to the public roads where it's already implied and we generally don't specify =yes for each mode. I discussed this briefly on the OSM World Discord #oceania channel and there was consensus there.

The psv=yes on highway=busway, per imagery indicating it's Taxi/Bus Only, I updated to psv=designated to reflect the road access.

hi you've added psv=yes to the train line here which isn't quite right so I've removed it.

hi you've added `psv:lanes=*` to the route relation, that tag is only applicable to the actual road ways with highway=* where you want to specify bus lanes. I've removed it from the relation but you may want to correctly add it to the road segment again.

most highway=* values are already assumed to be public transport accessible by default, therefore it's not necessary to tag this.

See osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Worldwide

In my view we don't want to be tagging every single road as hgv=yes, psv=yes, bicycle=yes, etc. that's just noise.

Where there are bus lanes we should be indicating that with the relevant tagging, or where it could be ambiguous like highway=pedestrian we should specify or where there's signage like no access, busses excepted we should tag that but otherwise for regular roads we shouldn't usually tag psv=yes.

FYI I've changed way/176608577/history to Mona Vale Road. My reasoning is the street signage here indicates it's Mona Vale Road, with "To Kanangra Road" implying that Kanangra Road is further along. This is likely done my the council due to the houses along here being addresses to Mona Vale Road, however DCS NSW data still shows it as "Kanangra Avenue" for the whole section, it's just this doesn't match any council signage installed.

Thanks. This is visible on the Esri World Imagery (you can change the background imagery in the editor). I've made some minor tweaks, including adding the no-u-turn restrictions, adding the turn around roads on the side roads, and using the turn:lanes tagging over running the _link road for the length of the turn lane per best practice.

*track

I've added that part back in as a driveway

I've added that part back in but as a driveway

Thanks! It looks like the construction=trunk was the issue.

It's likely the same business as node/11053177237 so I migrated some tags across and deleted this one.

I moved node/7973343649 to the centre of the reservoir where it appears to be on the imagery

> Just to check - does adding in a couple of start_date's manually make the import harder?

Nope. What I was thinking was match based on being within X meters and the ref matches, then add start_date if not existing already (if already exists then ignore it).

After I saw your changesets, I made a few state wide changesets which included adding the ref to these site relations based on the name.