Hi Joel! I've always been confused by this one. The wiki does show a picture of the same kind of "kerb ramp" for `kerb=lowered`, but the height value makes me think `kerb=flush` is more suitable given that it's a smooth transition with no difference in height. The name and height for "lowered" sound to me like it's for nodes where the kerb edge is "a lot lower than the rest but still gives a noticeable difference in height". I wish the distinction would be more clear-cut. I'm not surprised others would tag like me, but I definitely would have had a signficant role in the issue you've noticed around Meanjin! 😅

I've done a partial revert here: changeset/185019701
I will check access tags next, and in the next few days a physical survey to expand fenced area (they have done "stage 2").

Thanks Scottie, I will mention related changesets here :)

I was just on site today and as far as I can tell, all features removed are still there.
I have updated some fence positions, added some fences mapped a service road, and mapped more trees (mainly outside the fence).
I didn't realise you moved the cycleway to its new position, which is great. There's probably other things I'm missing on top of the construction site outline and the cycleway, so I wouldn't revert the whole changeset as I hastily suggested at first, apologies for that. But I'd like to bring back the features that are still on site, of course making sure that access tags (if relevant) are changed to make it clear that whatever is inside the fence is not accessible to the public. My priority is the trees.
What do you think, would that be OK with you?

Just wanted to clarify that I am fine with marking the construction area, of course. I was going to continue mapping precisely the fence on site, so the plan was to have the area marked as a "construction site" too eventually.
Let me know what you think!

Hi Scottie!

Sorry, could we please consider reverting this changeset?

I have put in a lot of effort recently to precisely map the trees in the park (to some detail when possible, including reference numbers, species/genus...). The tree are currently still all standing, as far as I am aware of, and for a big part they will still be standing beyond the construction of the stadium - if it goes ahead at all.

See for example:
- changeset/183995879
- changeset/183996251
- changeset/183998009
- changeset/183428570
- changeset/183428210
- changeset/183427931
- changeset/183427736
- etc.

The buildings are still there too, and there are no plans released telling us what parts will and won't be demolished or excavated.

I was going to return on Friday to continue mapping trees along the fences, and I plan to continue monitoring the site as it evolves over the next 6 years.

Congratulations! And thanks for your contributions to HOT! ♥️

Thanks! I did more as I had surveyed the area, see changeset/180285330 (and the fixing of the conflicting edits in changeset/180285431)

Hey there, just wanted to let you know about some inadvertent moves of nodes in your changeset, which I assume happened as you were dragging the map while moving along the cycleway. I fixed them in the following changesets:

changeset/174458814
changeset/174459111
changeset/174459491
changeset/174459700
changeset/174459833

resolves note/4956652

congrats on the 172 millionth changeset!

resolves note/4625375

Hi Robuster.
I noticed that this changeset added many trees on this campus, but a lot of them don't make sense. For example, see note/4932050 : you added 18 trees where there are actually only 8.
Similarly, you added 11 trees in polygon way/704728986 but it's actually a bamboo grove, so there's not a single tree there.
Also, all the trees are marked as "lit", which is wrong (there might be a couple of trees with fairy lights on this campus, but that's it). And you marked most (all?) of them as "broadleaved", which can't be inferred from aerial imagery (I assume this all was inferred from aerial imagery).
natural=tree is used for mapping single trees, sometimes because they are significant. Please only mark trees from aerial imagery if single trees can be told apart, or even not at all if you can't verify on site. Please do not map trees from aerial imagery for a dense area of greenery as it is guaranteed to be inaccurate. There are alternatives, for example natural=wood if the area is significantly large.
See the documentation: natural=tree

reverted in changeset/167440939

congrats on the 167 millionth changeset :)

For reference:

https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/transport-and-parking/transport-projects/story-bridge-restoration-project

https://www.removepaywall.com/search?url=https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/here-s-what-walking-the-council-s-story-bridge-footpath-detour-is-really-like-20250506-p5lwwy.html

https://www.removepaywall.com/search?url=https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/budget-bjelke-petersen-organiser-lashes-lord-mayor-as-court-blocks-story-bridge-protest-20250529-p5m34h.html

why the slight change in position?

Hi there
OSM is not an advertising space. Changeset comments need to be descriptive of what has been edited.
Having "SEO" in your username really makes it sound like your contributions will be limited to advertising.

Hi! This is an old changeset but I thought I'd still comment about the added trees: Beneke's Bush is sufficient for mapping the forest, in this case. No need to map individual trees in this area, especially since their characteristics were not individually assessed. I assume all the individual trees in this area (e.g. node/9579630107 ) were not all measured to end up all having the exact same height of 9 m and diameter of 11 m?
In any case, the area needs an update given the current construction work. Just a heads up that if I do update the area, I will remove the individual trees in the natural=wood area. (Other trees along highways are fine and I won't touch those.)

Thanks! :)
Would love to catch up! I'll send you a DM.