Does all this need reverting?

Hi
I have shifted the description '22 Carter St' you added to a street node to the house I mapped with expected address tags. Can you verify that is the correct house.

This bears very little resemblance to the shape of the water body. You need to adjust the polygon to replicate what you see in the satellite imagery.

Hi 设计在先
Following discussion at talk.au it seems we need to confirm you have permission to post this data on osm. I have sent a message to you via osm personal messaging.

I raised this issue on the talk.au newgroup to find out more info
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2022-November/016646.html
Now I have found that the mapping likely relates to facilitating research in to Edge Computing, I am satisfied it likely innocuous to osm and will leave as is.

Unless you reply, I will be reverting all your edits soon as these seem not to belong in osm until you can verify what you are mapping.

There seems no such tag for power on our wiki…
power=*?uselang=en
Are you mapping a kind of computer server instead?

It is also nowhere near the address you have tagged from what I am able to check.

Hi, roads that lead to individual rural property residences should be tagged highway=service plus service=driveway and most often access=private .
They are not, in an osm sense, residential roads, though the wiki is not very helpful with guidance. You could raise the issue on the talk.au mailing list if to wish to discuss with other Australian mappers.

Hi, what are you mapping … what is an edge server?

This is too aproximate
https://osmcha.org/changesets/128367837/

Hi, I think this would be better tagged as shop=beauty instead of a supermarket

Hi, you have mapped an odd shaped building here that bears no resemblance to the satellite imagery.
You have tagged it as a coffee shop but it appears to me to be more suited to shop=beauty

Yes, Maxar and Esri imagery seem to confirm that.

Hi, you could also add the tag access=private to the privately owned section.

Thanks for the confirmation.

I sympathise with your hashtag comment...but...
please use achavi to view any changes you are unsure of https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=128159523
The main change in this seems to be to delete an extra way where no physical separation exists between lanes, which is a proper correction.

Here is the area with aerial imagery
https://postimg.cc/kRMc35kK
Note that no track is mapped along that strip. It is just the boundary of the reserve as currently gazetted in parliament.

Hi Foxydoug
I am a bit confused by what you mean.
See image: https://postimg.cc/rzYf5VSY
The coordinates you gave point to the end of the red arrow in the bottom of the image. The green line depicts the boundary of the wooded area. The only track here is the one named Kangaroo and a road named Access to Percy...
The dashed orange line is the boundary of the Tutanning Nature Reserve.
Do you mean the section of the Reserve boundary where I have drawn the blue line?
I don't know why the Reserve boundary does not include that strip. Many nature reserves and similar natural reserved area boundaries to have similar excluded strips.
My guess is that it maybe a reserve for future road or transmission lines or pipelines, etc.

Is this is the section you think should be deleted as you feel a previously planned road will never be built here?

We have mapped all the Gazetted natural areas from datasets supplied by the relevant Govt Departments
( Like CAPAD and others...
https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/land/nrs/science/capad )
and we would leave the boundaries as gazetted.
These are updated on a semi regular basis and we would update the boundaries when they are changed by the dept responsible with a new release of the dataset.

Does that help to answer your query?

Hi, you are expected to map the footprint of the building and if it looks like a house, tag with building=house, etc.
A random shape over the terrain is sub optimal and of no use to the map.