reverted see reverted see changeset/97270660

reverted see changeset/97270660

Hi, it looks like this is an undiscussed import and per osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines there is a process to doing imports like this. I've reverted your changeset here and will likely need to redact it too for a few reasons.
1. Undiscussed
2. Copyrighted data incompatible with OSM's license
3. Data model not consistent with standard OSM tags

If you could provide some motivation for doing this upload, perhaps we could identify a better way to go about what you're were looking to achieve?

Hi check out club=*#Recreation looks like club=rowing is the best way to tag this as a rowing club.

hi I reverted this changeset since there is no campsite here at the entrance in the carpark.

usually highway=pedestrian+area=yes is used for a plaza, square or mall, that can't be represented as a linear way. For the pavement running along side the road along the row of shopfronts, usually that would just be a linear sidewalk way and not an area polygon.

Reasoning is generally it is accessible to the public, with the exception of authorised motor vehicles only.

Personally I'd prefer to leave off the access tag, and just add motor_vehicle=private or motor_vehicle=no.

highway=trunk_link link roads don't usually have a name but this isn't a blanket rule.

This changeset has been reverted in changeset/96888664 as vandalism.

This changeset has been reverted in changeset/96888664 as vandalism.

This changeset has been reverted in changeset/96888354 as vandalism.

Yes thanks that was a mistake, fixed it now. Thanks.

Looks good on the tramway, just a few nodes in the city look dragged when maybe shouldn't have been?
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/96648418

That's fine if that's how it's defined in OSM. Technically there is a small section at the north without a cliff, and there is a gap on the east where a road goes up, so mostly surrounded by cliff but not completely.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/96647702

Yep and I disagree with natural=valley only being a single way along the valley floor. This changeset and others are experimenting with alternative and improved ways of mapping valleys with the goal to eventually do a proposal to change the wiki. We need some mapped this way to see what works and what doesn't and to demonstrate the style. I'll try and start writing up a draft proposal on this style of mapping.

I understand that, but I still think there is no harm and a lot of benefit to OSM containing our best effort of mapping the extent of these valleys based on both local knowledge and government sources.

Do you have any specific concerns about the Jamison Valley after it was refined in relation/12107413 if you can raise specific points or issues with this one then we can try to work through them.

GNB designates this as a pass. Instead of tagging this as a generic unpopulated place name (locality), I think that mountain_pass=* is a better tag, indeed that's how I've tried to map passes and helps data consumers looking to find named mountain passes.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/96583917

> We map what actually exists in the real world, and “original research” by surveying locations in person is our gold standard.

While I 100% agree with this and frequently argue for this approach. If community standard and expectations change, then this might not always hold true and it's fine for the community to agree to situations where this doesn't or can't apply.

Marine Parks have been mapped around Australia and these are not verifiable (nothing exists to mark their bounds or names on the high seas) but there are enough stakeholders and mappers who want to see these mapped and work to map them based off government sources.

RE point v area if one really don't have any clue on the bounds then agreed best to map as a point (eg. Hunter Valley I'd only be guessing for an area as I don't have enough local knowledge), it's just than where possible an area conveys much more information, about size and rough extent, this helpsfor cartography (knowing rough size and extent for label placement) and reverse geocoding (where am I type queries).

RE GNB. Great suggestion, that's a solid source as a reference to help refine the boundaries more precisely. I'm neutral to either a way or relation. Either way it can be defined by the ridge. With a way it can share nodes, with a relation it can be a member.

RE. Kangaroo Valley, absolutely you can argue if it should it cover just the "floor" or extent up to the ridge or cliff tops. That's a whole separate discussion worth having. But for now as a first pass just so we have something in OSM instead of nothing, either options or anywhere in between is good enough and better than nothing in my opinion.

Sure I get the argument that placing a node puts in in the right valley of the DEM, and then a program could choose to follow that point out from the valley floor, but I'm not sure if that's foolproof.

Still I appreciate the comments here and discussion raised.