I wasn't precisely sure, so I was going for the generic "Australian Aboriginal", which is actually spelled "name:aus" as it turns out.

osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Australia%27s_First_Peoples#Indigenous_Languages_and_Place_Names

It looks like the language is Noongar based on the local government who manage it acknowledging the Noongar people as the traditional owners of the land. So it should be "name:nys".

https://www.kwinana.wa.gov.au/city-life/facilities-and-public-spaces/venues-and-facilities-for-hire/honeywood-complex

I also put the name on the footpath instead of the building, whoops!

Thanks for processing my varied (and often pedantic) notes! I love to see the processes in action that keep the map updated to changes (in addition to all the features being newly added).

Cheers

On the change to `highway=corridor`, I don't think it's worth it at the moment. The wiki ways that 80% have[had] a `indoor=yes` too, so I think that's where we look instaed of highway corridor. These are normal and often important/generous footways, but the problem is osm.org and indoor maps don't even render `highway=corridor` and sone routers ignore it.

:(
It's not ready for primetime, imo.

The corridor tag we can go for is `indoor=corridor`, which is best done as an area. Along side each `indoor=room`, `room=shop` thingos.

Look how it looks [on OpenLevelUp](https://openlevelup.net/?l=2#20/-31.94849/115.86252) as someone starting out.
OLevelUp inherently misses all navigation features except steps and corridor areas :( so we have to get fancy manually with areas.

Yes! There are a few around the park, mounted on short poles, for food trucks during events and that kind of thing.

I think I figured out the correct tagging, including the socket type, for one of the others a while ago ...

Also, make sure that footpaths share a node when they join with another path or road, not just have a node nearby. Look for the grey circle indicating a shared node, vs a white circle at the end without.

Only painting pre-made pieces.

This is the changeset that introduces the duplicate footpath up Beatrice Ave. I have removed the duplicate in my changeset: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166546644
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166250536

The very west of the footpath you added here overlaps awkwardly with the road, because the road was not aligned properly to begin with. The overlap of footpath and road, and the connectivity of those elements is not correct for the situation there.

In adding a footpath alongside this road, its pretty much necessary to move the road way closer to the centre of the actual road - as seen in the imagery.

I'll leave this one for you to tackle :) The rest of the edit is great, and the inclusion of all the `highway=crossing` nodes is appreciated.
https://osmcha.org/changesets/166331618
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166331618

Nice footpath changes over the week. Your other change removing a duplicated footpath looked spot on, but this one still leaves a problem.

In this edit, you overlapped the two crossings, but they were both still present. (It can be pretty tricky when multiple ways share the same nodes like that. Sometimes I delete a way, just to see if there is anything underneath, then use undo to restore it).

A nice way to visualise changesets is OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166248829
I fixed up this intersection in https://osmcha.org/changesets/166546644
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166248829

Nice edits! you have been adding a lot of little footway connections, which is a great addition.

One thing to add to your mapping is the tagging of pedestrian crossings. When a footpath crosses a road, the node that is shared between the two needs to be tagged with `highway=crossing`. (In iD, click on the node, then change the feature to "Unmarked Crossing"). Check out this area for an example: node/9921055660#map=19/-32.039793/115.935489

And this page for details on tagging the crossing: highway=crossing

Cheers,
Ben
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166255391

Nice addition, jumping straight into a complex intersection!

It turns out that Orrong Road already had the pedestrian crossings tagged on a node (but with the actual footway missing). I have combined your new crossing nodes with the ones that were there in this changeset: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166462961
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166253391

Nice addition!

I have added the highway=crossing tag to the shared node where the footpath crosses the road (turning the node into an "unmarked crossing". This is considered an important detail to include (for routing engines).

I have also added some additional tags, like footway=sidewalk tag and crossing:island=no, which are the next level of detail, that is considered optional but desirable in this part of the world these days :)

Check out the roundabout just to the east, and my changeset here: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166454187
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166247979

It is a place where you pay to go and paint pottery that you get to take home. I don't know the correct tagging. Somewhat like a "paint and sip" place.

With the Cleopatra Hotel, the change that I made was to create two features: one for the building itself and one for the amenity that is currently set up inside. This distinction is understood in OSM, see the second paragraph of building=*.

The *building* is heritage listed feature (described by the linked wikidata entry) and has the name "Cleopatra Hotel".
The *community center* inside the building has the same address, but a different name.

Often we use the same OSM area element to tag both a building and the amenity inside it. This is a shortcut that not applicable here, because the building and amenity have different names, wikidata ID's etc.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/146467939

Hi Charles,

I just wanted to mention that the `name` tag is only for the *proper noun* name for things, not for a description or generic term. See osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only and the "Names are not for descriptions" section below that.

If there is information that can't be captured in tags that you know of, you can add a description in the `note` tag for other mappers to look at, or the `description` tag for map users to see.

Keep it up!
Ben

Hi Rebecca.

I've been looking over the edits from our day out. I love the details that you have included in the features that you added!

One thing that I do want to point out though is that the `name` tag is only for the *proper noun* name for things, not for a description or generic term. See osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only and the "Names are not for descriptions" section below that.

I hope to spot more of your edits around in the wild in the future!

Cheers, Ben.

Based on the imagery and City of Busselton website, I think Ambergate Reserve is better described by `leisure=nature_reserve`, so I have gone ahead and re-tagged it.

The tag `water=level groundwater related` - as it is not a standard value - would probably be better served by some sort of `note=` tag as a way to inform future mappers, or a `description=` tag for map consumers.

In my view, your recent edits across a range of feature types have been very accurate and show a great understanding of how the tagging system should be used. Keep it up!

Yes, I've used "cement" and "concrete" interchangeably, and the correct tag is "concrete".

I have been corrected, it is clearly "The Peanut Roundabout".

Nice work on the ramp!