this is probably highway=service + service=alley but it's hard to tell.

Take care when using iD tag suggestions when the name is being changed, in this case we've now lost that this is "Erskineville" post office. I'm not sure of the name here, but at the very least you could use branch=Erskineville to ensure that information is not lost.

I think it's safe to say the road that goes through maccas there is service=drive-through

Just because you have some perpendicular parking I don't think that makes it a parking_aisle, I'd consider the classification of the road as a whole which in this case looks like a driveway. If you want you could mark this as a parking lane parking:lane=*

I'd say this is a driveway not a parking aisle, since you don't have individual parking spaces here.

Hi I noticed you extended this road from Weeney Street. Better to create a new way unless you know it has the same name. In this case I checked the name on the NSW LPI Basemap and changed it based on that as I suspect you haven't surveyed the road name but rather just extended the existing one.

hi you need to add nodes when the road intersects another highway for routing. I've fixed this for you.

What's the reason these should be removed?

I've added access=private to these as they aren't public roads.

I've changed this to highway=service + service=driveway + access=private

do you know how it's signposted on the ground? Generally the rule of thumb is to follow signposts, we don't have much Mapillary coverage here so I can't check remotely but https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/ZqTnQF2UPkmUYZvfRaKb8Q does just say "Belmore Road"

Hi, just a tip bicycle=yes means bicycles may be ridden. I'm not sure you can ride on the platform here.

reverted in changeset/81797930

reverted in changeset/81797813

reverted since this doesn't line up with imagery

reverted in changeset/81797172 this is not reflected on the ground per the imagery

I've reverted this for the time being, feel free to raise the issue on talk-au or here if you feel it is mapped incorrectly.

I can't see anything wrong with how it was modelled previously.

I've reverted this in the meantime in changeset/81797172 until you have a chance to reply.

I've reverted this in changeset/81797089 since I cannot confirm. If you could confirm your source?