Based on ESRI imagery, that section is actually there. If this was made purely using GPS traces, that seems like bad logic as no traces along somewhere doesn't necessarily indicate there's no road there.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185877633

Also, the brand change is incorrect, 7-Eleven Australia is separate from the US one.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185909575

Then the only concern would be anything that's only available from Electranet. Is there anything here that you could only find from there? If so, that should be removed.

The LWG decision originated from a discussion on opening hours. It's focused on database rights for a chain of stores with opening hours and addresses, not on geospatial data regarding electricity networks.

CC-BY-4.0 still requires a waiver as we can't attribute in a way that follows that license as well.

Where you've used satellite imagery, that is fine, but using those other sources would be a problem without permissions or waivers.

That's based on copying things like opening hours, addresses, and other simple facts like that. The details you've copied extend beyond that and go beyond just copying simple facts from a website.

Hi, do we have permission to use data from Electranet's website?

There's a copyright mark on the bottom of the page, and no obvious indication that this data has been released under a license we can use.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185571856

Hi, if this is meant to represent the top level, there's a few issues with it. If it's for a lower level, then it might be worth indicating that.

There's also no connection to other roads, so it's an isolated island at the moment.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184719047

If you want to just specify which units are in one whole building, you'd just put the range (I.e. 1-3) in the unit part. Otherwise, one option would just to put nodes where each unit is and just put the address in for each one, with no other details.

Hi, if those are buildings, you've removed that from being marked. Landuse would be for the surrounding area, not for the individual buildings. You'd want to tag those as building=apartments.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183908589

Hi, the roadway should still follow the main part of the road, the turning circle being mapped is enough to indicate it's presence
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183917890

Hi, it's not a definite rule, but in most cases, lanes are usually going to be highway=service and often service=alley.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183919990

Hi, for private you want access=private. access=no would mean nobody can access it at all.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183851464

Hi, I believe the one way here might be temporary, from memory the intention is for this section to be two way, just only connecting to the northbound side of the road. Can you check with your colleague on that?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183885828

Hi, you've drawn a sidewalk over the top of the road, this is probably incorrect. The other ones don't match up to aerial imagery too.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183511213

Hi, if this is a driveway, should the maxspeed still be 50 and the name remain?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183518853

Hi, is there a reason for this to be a relation? Those relations are generally used for things like M/A/B/C routes, not just for a single road.

Hi, what government website was your source? Just because it's a government website, it doesn't mean we automatically have the right to use it.

Hi, if that is a driveway, it should probably be changed to highway=service and service=driveway.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183417605

Hi aerial imagery still shows a dog-leg at the intersection, has this been removed recently?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183470535

When you say this doesn't officially exist, is there some kind of spot here where you can stop still? If so, then it should probably remain mapped in some form. Removing the parking is fair, the rest_stop there's arguments either way in that it's not officially one, but it's somewhat become one. The highway should remain, maybe as a short highway=track if anything, but there is something there that exists (according to aerial imagery at least).
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183327243