node/9561479152/history
node/9561479151/history
Those seem to be pillars in wall with gates, no bollards visible on Mapillary 2018.
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=811089846457031&focus=photo

way/729909317/history
Dat is wel een kort segment met motor_vehicle=no, emergency=yes.
Pas verderop staat een access_sign node.
Ik verwacht de access-restrictie pas na de access_sign, behalve als de locatie van het toegangsbord is veranderd.

Horse farm here is maybe the one to the north

Another example, clearly horse farm
way/754389072

Ok, I see, this is building part. Needs resurveying / changing building outline if it is already finished construction.
way/1346668756

node/12455844550/history
seems at wrong location based on old Mapillary / Bing Streetside it is on the small building on the corner to the north
way/1184249013

It might also be useful to add dog=leashed to the segment between the two gates.

node/12456276754/history
Seems at wrong location. Use instead
https://api.panoramax.xyz/#pic=ffd55464-feae-4de2-9286-1bb5d1ed371d&focus=pic
sequence is more dense..

Ref note/679392

These are likely shelters/roofs for horses or similar?
They do not look like huts (or as Victor suggests, shooting cabins)

Ref note/4493019

By changing the building outlines to building parts, there is no longer any building outline. As such no building will be displayed by (most) rendering applications.

Please resolve this as appropriate and comment on this changeset when you are done.
( note to other mappers: see
@googlenaut/blocks as to why user is being actively recommended to comment here.)

If you need any help, contact the local community at
https://openstreetmap.community/?map=-33.86434,151.20266&zoom=7.98

Hey crazed-mapper,

In reference to
note/4518062

For private ways, you should use
access=private
The tag access=no is intended for areas prohibited to the general public, such as construction areas.
access=no

Your changes visualised
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=58306975

Resolved in
changeset/165212968

Hey MapCam,

Be careful when mapping objects obscured on aerial imagery.
Where available, you can use streetlevel imagery, though be aware it may be outdated.
('Edit' => right sidebar => Data Layers => i.e. Bing Streetside); solely for your information, proprietary (copyright) sources such as Google Maps etc. can not be used for this.
osm.wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility

It is best not to map these if not sufficiently visible.
osm.wiki/Verifiability

Instead, add a 'fixme' tag to request other mappers to survey the location.
fixme=*

If you need any help, feel free to contact the local community at
https://openstreetmap.community/?map=-33.87118,151.20198&zoom=8.36

Removed the unverifiable footway segment in
changeset/165210839

Ref note/4518858

'Standing stone put there with a crane' does not magically create (religious) anything for OpenStreetMap.
Religious landuse is reserved for points of interest (POI) providing i.e. religious services, offices(and if included with these, shops) to their users.
Places of worship are reserved for those which are/were used for religious practices by their users.
Neither, nor as such most objects, are intended for those used solely by a private individual, or inaccesible property without such proper reason to map them.
See also
osm.wiki/Private_objects
(and links on each page)

The enclosed wooded area seems okay. It can at least kind of be seen to exist from sources contributors are allowed to use from the editor application (see 'Edit'); solely for your information, proprietary (copyright) sources such as Google Maps etc. can not be used for this.
The name should be the signed name, not description, see
osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions
(you already used description, which is good.);
though, some of the below recommendations apply here as well
man_made=nesting_site#Recommendations_and_Guidelines_of_Usage

Your changes visualised
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=48590715

I have removed the unverifiable standing stone and religious landuse. Resolved in
changeset/165210187

Hey green_leek,

Objects which represent a single group should be mapped as a single object if sufficiently close together.
See this page for more information
osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element

(Some objects like charging points can be mapped individually, but usually have their own tag)

If there is a small gap, you can add a note tag saying there is one, but this is just so that other mappers do not add duplicates from aerial imagery.

Mentioned in notes
note/4476345

Your changes visualized
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=155872976

Resolved in
changeset/165208248

These are foundations of demolished buildings, not ones for new to be constructed buildings.
Resolved in
changeset/165144571
Marked them as demolished and the area as brownfield.

What is the source for your changes?

See osm.wiki/Verifiability

There seems to be no physical signage for such a route at this location
https://api.panoramax.xyz/#pic=cb6b6972-9f29-4845-8b4a-2a242102a435&focus=pic

only for the cycleway itself, which is already mapped as a way. See
osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element

What is the source for your changes?

See osm.wiki/Verifiability#Planned_features

article used for previous changeset only, not for this one.

Thanks. Yes, that makes sense.

Hey PluMGMK,

Are you sure it is this pole?

It looks like you meant this one.
node/12459264558

Regards,

Daniel

way/842361171
Is it explicitly signed as "Bell Tower"? It seems like descriptive name. It is already correctly tagged as
tower:type=bell_tower
I would suggest removing name tag.