A lot of these where you've add works landuse appear to be office buildings, and not works per man_made=works. Could you provide more detail about your changes please?

hi was this via a survey? A few questions,
1. Why is the SBS office marked as works "an industrial production plant"? Is this not an office anymore?
2. Why were the buildings on Parks Road deleted? Are there no longer there? They are visible on the most recent ESRI imagery.
3. Is landuse=works correct for the St Leonards Corporate Center area, Fox Sports office building and AusPost facility, I thought these are mostly commercial office buildings, not industrial production plants.
4. With the St Leonards clinict, you've moved the amenity=hospital tag from the building to the grounds, but there are a bunch of other tags related to the hospital, these need to be moved across as they relate to the amenity=hospital.

How do you decide the extent of this watershed? ie. why Sydney Coast-Georges? I would assumed you'd have a watershed for each coastal outlet but looks like a few have been combined here, how was that decided? If we start saying it's okay to map watersheds that could end up being a lot of areas for each coastal outlet? Does it make sense to actually include this in OSM? There are other ways to query OSM data such that your query object can be outside OSM.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/101377566

Overall I don't think the tag really adds much as it's a fair default assumption, but still somebody decided to add it, so removing it should be thought out.

I think the originally mapper was trying to say that bicycles can use the shoulder here. Which would be the default so they certainly aren't wrong.

> b) shoulder:access:bicycle=yes is a bit of 'lets say: extensive odd way' of telling: bicycle=yes & shoulder=yes

Not quite, the top level access tags like bicycle=yes would refer to the carriageway not usually the shoulder. You could have different access rules for the shoulder vs the roadway.

> it looked hardly likely bicycles can use it safely.

That's not really a concern for the access tag. access tag is legal access, not perceived safety.

> If you are known at the place, we can also re-add the shoulder assignment? Together with bicycle = yes (or no, because unsafe)
Best together with bicycle=yes on the pre-post sections as well.

As you said, bicycle access is allowed by default here.

> And if there is a genuine bicycle-traffic-flow we could make a connection for routing apps between the primary link and the nearby footway starting from huntleys point road.
> The latter is not good enough visible on aerial imagery to deside as armchair mapper.

I uploaded Mapillary imagery here a while back, eg at https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=nEtl70cmj-b2GG-V5d18vA&focus=photo

There is no connection between this link road and the footway here, so would be wrong to add a connecting highway=cycleway. However you can still road on this link road if you're riding on the road access Burns Bay Road bridge.

hi protection_title should be "National Park" not national_park.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/101203850

could you elaborate on the motivation for the change? Was it just that shoulder:access:bicycle=yes is assumed as default? Even then it doesn't hurt to have it.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/101232483

I see what you mean, but I don't think it's harmful to mark everything inside as private too, just avoids uncertainty and makes it easier for data consumers.

I added access=private to indicate they aren't accessible to the general public.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/101014956

hi there were a number of tagging issues here, so I've fixed those up. If you need a hand with mapping this area, feel free to post back here I can try to help.

Hi, the building:flats is usually better placed on the building outline way, not on the residential landuse plot. The value should indicate the number of units there are in the building, so should be more than 1.

I upgraded the tagging to be a shared path allowing pedestrians access.

um what's up with https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/566854983 ?

Per note/2529948 it doesn't look like a tennis court, are you sure it's a tennis court?

Looks good. Just that we should remove cycleway:both=no when using cycleway=share_busway as they are contradictory.

Oh such a shame these ferry services seem to have stopped.

FYI not sure if you know but the coastline in OSM should be placed at mean high water mark, so if the rock ledges are usually underwanter for an average high tide, then they should be covered by the "ocean", if they are usually not underwater at high tide, then should not be part of the OSM "ocean". See natural=coastline

Just omit the access tag, because you've already specified the designated access for foot and bicycles.

What's the reason for access=no? If it's open to cyclists and pedestrians then I'd omit this access tag unless it's closed and no one can access it.

"Unmaintained Track Road" in the iD editor is incorrect as documented at highway=track#iD_Editor, so reguarly maintained firetrails should still be highway=track.

That said it could still be correct to map this as unclassified if it's deemed a road and not a firetrail, forestry access road or agricultural road.

hi this track was already tagged as access=private which signals that it can't be used except with permission. If the track is still used by the those people with permission then it still exists and should still be mapped, otherwise if the track is being closed to be removed one of the lifecycle osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix tags would be best instead of removing it just yet.