Building "Office Works" already had the correct "Officeworks" node on it, adding a name to the building separately is superfluous and has been removed.

Thanks for the confirmation, a locked gate means access=private. Broken bitumen is surface=unpaved, so the previous way was correct by your own account. If you have no complaints, I'll go ahead and revert this changeset in the next few hours pending your reply 👍🏻

Hi there, is the road in question inaccessible to the public, i.e. a fence (access=no), accessible via gate (access=private), or has it been dug up + no longer exists (delete the way)?
Typically features don't get deleted in OSM so I wanted to request clarification.
Kind regards, Chris.

Fascinating! What do you recommend I do in this case? Downgrade to bicycle=no + add surveyed width and grade tags? Or would adding the width and grade tags, maybe a note be enough for them to notice? I’ll get out there with my gear when I’m able.

Thanks for the super quick response! I’ll go out there with a tape measure the next time I can so I can add more detail to this segment in particular. I do have my trusty OSM Surveyor high vis so I probably won’t look too suspicious doing it.
Do TfNSW/Penrith council monitor OSM for this kind of data? I know both teams make heavy use of ArcGIS/ESRI as their stack, which uses OSM data for their base maps, but I wouldn’t expect either to be alerted for discrepancies based on tags like this.
I wonder if it might also be worth contacting Penrith Council about this matter or surfacing/advocating for a proper cycle network around the suburb 🤔
Gives me a few ideas. Again, thanks for your response.

Hi Ant,
Thanks for adding this data.

I have some points of contention regarding the data set, as I frequently survey this suburb.

I’ve confirmed the designation against the TfNSW source, though on the ground the infrastructure along Endeavour Avenue doesn’t really appear to support cycle path designation.

This footpath (way/1016069162) is less than 1 metre in width, uneven due to tree root uplift, and has no visible shared path signage or line marking. The first shared path signage I could find starts at way/1007914621, near the high school/across the intersection.

The refuge island in the middle of Bennett Road is also extremely narrow (roughly 80 cm), and doesn’t appear particularly safe or practical to use with a bicycle, even when dismounted.

The crossing point at the shopping centre entrance on Endeavour Avenue has no refuge island at all, and vehicles frequently enter and exit the car park at relatively high speeds, so it already feels somewhat unsafe even as a pedestrian.

So while TfNSW may designate this as cycling infrastructure, the physical infrastructure on site doesn’t appear to have been upgraded to reflect that designation.

The path through the centre reserve also doesn’t currently have any signage indicating shared path status, which is why I had mapped it as "bicycle=yes". That said, if you feel the TfNSW designation is sufficient justification here, I’m happy to leave that section as-is.

For the section along Endeavour Avenue specifically, I think it would make more sense to follow the “ground truth” principle and map it as "bicycle=no", perhaps with a note/comment explaining the discrepancy with the TfNSW dataset. What do you think?

Kind regards,
Chris.

OpenStreetMap has a very documented way of handling most issues, and there have been issues with users in the past not being able to recognise the documentation and instead using their personal beliefs as their standard for contributing - I'm glad this is not the case here, and I applaud you for coming around. If you'd like some reading material on "standard practise", the two links that aharvey mentioned in his original comment are a great place to start. The wiki has very thorough information on what is expected 🙌🏻

Do you have a link to the policy you're referring to where it's accepted to remove data for low-quality buildings? I'd like to see what officially recognised/community-standard position you're referring to.

I just checked the buildings you had removed personally and they were of a completely standard quality that you would expect in the OSM database. It's humourous that you personally use an AI to add buildings for you, one that seems to only recognise sheds as buildings (changeset/162522492), in a completely erratic/sparse pattern that doesn't provide any sort of benefit to data consumers/end users, to be judging others for doing the same. If you're not happy with the quality of data in the OSM database, you're welcome to either fix it, or ignore it. You cannot remove data for reasons such as "low quality".

While I understand your point of view, and there have been many cases where I would have liked to have done the same, this is not the OpenStreetMap way.

As @aharvey provided links to, and as @fortera_au mentioned; if data is incorrect, you fix it, not delete it.

fortera and aharvey are correct here. please fix the buildings yourself if you don't think they're of a sufficient quality. data shouldn't be deleted

Hello, I just wanted to query what your motivation behind the pattern for adding buildings is here? It's incredibly erratic and looks suspicious, like an AI or bot program, which is forbidden without user intervention or community discussion. Kind regards.

From the definition of Key:name, "The primary name: in general, the most prominent signposted name or the most common name in the local language(s)."
Despite the gazetted name remaining as the "official" name, the station's signposted name is "Wattle Glen". You can see in the surrounding area, including that of the suburb is also "Wattle Glen". The gazetted name does not match what is used in reality, and we map what exists in reality, not a legal database. Why is this even a discussion? `name` is not what is considered official; it's what's prominent, most used, and locally recognised – which is what is signposted.
I suggest you choose a better hill to die on before you get suspended by the DWG over this pointless edit war.

+1 This sounds like the best solution to me. Unnecessary edit war when such a simple solution exists.

Hi MapAnalyser465,
We don't have access to either of the sources that you linked as the source for this changeset. Have you been in contact with Big JayDog Adventures separately and received permission to use their footage for OSM mapping? The M12 CA Portal is also copyrighted.
Kind regards, Chris.

Hey Kyle,
I thought I would chime in here because it's currently being discussed in the Discord server. We're currently compiling speeds from the trains through GTFS-R and manual observation and have numbers for the majority of these sections, which seem to be a bit higher than your calculations. So this is just a heads-up that either I or someone from the Discord may overwrite these speeds in the coming days/weeks.
Kind regards, Chris.

Hi Kyle,
I believe the current consensus for adding proposed features is that they shouldn't be added (as proposed) until a project is actually "confirmed" (aka undeniably "will be built"). It seems that despite land being acquired to protect these corridors for future use is currently being undertaken, the project is not yet confirmed to go ahead nor are there concrete plans that this will exist in the future, so I propose we remove these for now.
What are your thoughts?
Kind regards,
Chris.

I'm unfamiliar with the Data SA definitions, but rarely should they match the OSM guidelines. Would you be able to provide me with the definitions?

Fortera is correct here. The OSM definitions of roads are completely different/separate from the Government's own classification scheme. This has always been the case.

**Road hierarchy must be based on the OSM Wiki definitions in OSM and not that of any outside source. OSM does not exist to replicate any Government database or information. OSM records the true state of the environment as it exists on the ground at that moment. It is up to your own best interpretation of the existing environment in accordance with the mapping standards that are set forth in the wiki.**

Hi there. Generally, it is only advised to add names to footpaths/sidewalks if they are specifically signposted/designated, which is uncommon for sidewalks in particular. Not that it's necessarily incorrect information to add the street name to footpaths/sidewalks; this data is easily added by data consumers detecting adjacent streets, and is not commonly tagged in Australia.