Hi WoedEel, this is the second time you've made this change here. Can you please explain why you are doing this? You did not respond to the previous discussion at changeset/140414606
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144914120

Welcome to OSM and thank you for your edits. I have reviewed this changeset can propose the following improvements: ideally the address tags should be only on either the address node, or on the building feature, but not both (premise is to try not to duplicate information across multiple features). Secondly, the new building feature you've create is overlapping with the already exisiting building, which isn't very clean. I would suggest splitting up the rest of the building sections into their own building features, or look into using the building:part tag instead (which are intended to overlap with building features).
Cheers, keep it up
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/143451226

Hey, I am curious where are you getting the route colours from for these updates?

Hi Grady, when mapping sidewalks as separate features like this, it's important to create connections at intersections where a pedestrian can conceivably cross - even when no formal crossing infrastructure exists. Otherwise walking routing will become very convoluted or sometimes impossible. Examples in this edit are the intersections of Pioneer/Catherine Streets, and Cranwell St/Railside Ave.
Cheers
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/141797463

Hi carolinatarigan,
The parking lot is already mapped as an area, so it does not need to be added as a point. See: way/376336172
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/140778965

I don't think this should be called Glenmore Road. This way appears to be a private residential accessway. Unless it has a signposted name it does not need a value for name. Probably a better choice highway value would be 'service', rather than 'residential'
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/140544678

Hi kurahaupo, welcome to OSM and thanks for your contribution. I have reviewed your changeset and it looks great, thanks for updating the village and for your good changeset comment. Cheers
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/140520653

Hi Alwyn, the five-digit numbers starting with 5 which you saw are the IDs of the 'parent station' in the GTFS. A parent station is a grouping of multiple bus stops. So here there is a parent station "Auckland International Airport" (ID 51473) which groups multiple bus stops, including "Stop A International Airport" (stop code 2008)

The "Auckland International Airport" parent station is mapped, represented by the OSM relation relation/15353894
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/140435125

Hi WoedEel, your changeset comment does not explain what you were doing in the changeset. I can see you've deleted the seperately mapped cycleway feature, and instead replaced it with tags on the main highway. Can you explain the reason for this approach? The separately mapped feature was a valid representation of the infrastructure on the ground, and it provided better detail and routing than is provided by the replacement tags. I don't think the tag "cycleway:right=opposite" is valid and may be problematic for routing (according to the OSMWiki page for cycleway).
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/140414606

You have modified the entry of a dental clinic in Auckland, New Zealand. It is also called Dental Artistry
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/140050527

OK I will remove the tags on the roads. And I've raised awareness of the signs with colleagues at AT.

Hey Kyle,
I think the no-cycling signs are specifically referring to footpath cycling, even if not all the signs are as explicit as this one: https://goo.gl/maps/xBbSsEykN4q7ox1a8

The signs are stupid and unnecessary (as cycling is technically banned from all footpaths anyway), but I think it's overkill to set bicycle=no on the roads around here

I've deleted the node
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139109047

See also https://www.reddit.com/r/NZTrees/comments/xbzsv9/has_anyone_used_weed_shop_nz_or_is_it_a_hoax/
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139109047

I think it's fair to have the linear feature named Queen Street. It is signposted and addressed as such. See signposts on Customs St outside H&M and Movenpick, and the address points around the square are all for Queen Street.

However the pedestrian area feature that represents the square should certainly continue to be named Te Komititanga.

The result (current state) is an appropriate representation of what's on the ground.

Oh it has already been fixed by another user with this changest https://osmcha.org/changeset/138790233

Hi Goose welcome to OSM editing, thanks for the contributions. I can see that this changeset moved the address node for 79 Anzac Avenue in the city by about 50 metres - I guess it was a mistake. I'll fix it up now.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/138743477

Hi ❤️‍🔥 FYI the naming of Spencer Estate residential landuse has been removed in https://osmcha.org/changesets/138042101
Even if it is common knowledge that this property is owned by Spencer, I agree that this information probably shouldn't be in OSM, as the property doesn't appear to be signposted as "Spencer Estate"

Hi Ctwemmy, welcome to OSM and thank you for your contributions. I am flagging two minor issues with this changeset:

The cycleway (way/1121942427) that you have edited still has the "planned:highway" key, which can be deleted now that you have given it a "highway" value.

Also it looks like you have accidentally dragged the address point node for 40A Taniwha Street (node/5485725056)

Cheers
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/137911133

This belongs in a 'description' tag, not in the name tag. Probably the sports field has no name suitable for the name tag.

See osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136679196