Would you please substantiate your statements with any evidence that makes you believe that completely correct tagging following currently accepted best practices is incorrect? Or why you believe that a way can't be split into segments when different tags apply to them? Or why you categorically state that accepted and used tag can't be added?

And finally, why you believe that any of these misunderstandings on your part justify the rather extensive campaign of reverting other peoples valid work that you seem to have been on for a while, looking at your changeset history.

TIA.

I'm sorry, I haven't got the slightest clue what you are actually trying to say here. Would you please lay out in detail your reasoning and thoughts on this?

It's important to understand that while the osm.wiki/Proposal_process can help with hammering out the details of a tag and making sure that it's exactly definition has widespread support, it is not mandatory for a tag to have gone through the proposal process and having been successfully voted on for that tag to be used.

In the end this comes down to one of the basic principles of OSM: osm.wiki/Any_tags_you_like

In regards to area:highway specifically, while there isn't a successfully voted on and accepted proposal, what exists on documentation so far is generally accepted as a reasonable way to map these types of things.

"turning_circle" is really a bad name of the tag, but it is what we have. It is used to tag a lot of things which are designed to support turning but which aren't necessarily circles.

The areas I tagged this way are specifically designed do support turning. That little way that goes off to the side has no purpose beyond allowing the garbage truck to be able to turn here (which is why there is also signs that prohibits parking in these 2 little stubby parts during the hours each week when the garbage truck normally operates).

highway=turning_circle is meant to be tagged on a node. Yes.

turning_circle=x is an additional tag which can be added to a highway=turning_circle to clarify the nature of the turning "circle".

In this case it's used on a area:highway=turning_circle, analog to a highway=turning_circle, to further clarify that type of turning point this is.

Like with other real turning "circles" there can be driveways going of that area.

Fundamentally, the areas I tagged this way exist in the shape they do primarily because they allow turning at this point for larger vehicles.

Just because it's "not necessary" is not reason to remove it.

The tag serves as documentation that someone actually reviewed the situation and made sure the road is not oneway. Something that is very common in inner cities like here.

I'm not sure why there is an urgent need to verschlimmbessern the mapping here...

Hi, would you mind letting us know what's your rational for deleting seemingly the whole of the Perth Bicycle Network? As far as I can tell, these all still exist as signed routes on the ground?

Hi, would you mind letting us know what's your rational for deleting seemingly the whole of the Perth Bicycle Network? As far as I can tell, these all still exist as signed routes on the ground?

Hi, would you mind letting us know what's your rational for deleting seemingly the whole of the Perth Bicycle Network? As far as I can tell, these all still exist as signed routes on the ground?

Hi, would you mind explaining why you are deleting a larger number of seemingly valid source tags from objects you don't otherwise touch?

Fixed: changeset/116734008

Thanks for pointing out the mistagging.

An error

Hi Guy,

there has been a lengthy discussion about this a few months ago on the talk-au mailing list, see the thread starting at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-October/015242.html

My reading of that thread is that there is a general consensus that such paths, if they exist on the ground, should remain mapped (for various reasons laid out on the thread) but should be clearly tagged to reflect their nature. (informal, visibility, smoothness, access=no IF there is no legal right to walk them, ....)

Please have a look at the linked thread.

Hi David, yes, I'm in North Lakes this weekend. I'm not opposed to meeting up, but given the COVID situation, I would prefer if that could happen outdoors (in shade), socially distanced, and with masks on. Feel free to send me a direct message.

Hi David,

I was well aware of your 15k+ edits before writing my comment. I would have taken a very different approach with a new-ish mapper. I just didn't think you need that level of hand-holding.

If you think I was a bit short with you, I'm sorry, please let me expand on that.

First, notice I didn't ask you to remove or change anything with this changeset.

I just didn't want you to keep going and end up adding a huge number of buildings via MapWithAI in this area. Especially north of Lake Eden.

A number of local mappers have reviewed the currently available Microsoft Building Footprints and came to the conclusion that it's going to take a more time and effort to verify and fix them than to simply draw the buildings by hand from scratch.

I've been holding off on continuing doing that as we have a direct statement from an ESRI employee that they are actively working right now on processing and making available the building footprints that the Moreton Bay Regional Council has contributed under the Esri Community Maps program, which after reviewing them in ArcGIS Online, are of much better quality than the Microsoft ones.

Adding a large number of the current footprints now would hugely increase the effort to use the better data in the future, for very little benefit in the meantime.

Please stop. The Microsoft building footprints in Australia are an absolute horrific mess.

ESRI is right now working on processing the infinitely better building data made available by MBRC which will be available through MapWithAI in the future.

This undiscussed, undocumented mass edit that didn't follow the osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct is introducing a huge amount of incorrect data to the database and should be reverted.

public_transport=platform doesn't automatically go onto every highway=bus_stop, only in cases where that's the only thing that's mapped.
if there is an actual waiting area of any kind, the public_transport=platform belongs on that instead.

see osm.wiki/Public_transport#Buses

Hi,

access=restricted is a known tagging error, see:

access=*#Possible_tagging_mistakes
and
access=restricted

Would you please correct that to "access=private"?

I had a quick look right now.

Using the latest Bing imagery, it seems that most of your kerbs seem fine, with the generally the right kerb type (it takes some experience to recognize the difference between a rolled and a raised kerb in imagery, but with the new bing and high quality esri imagery available, I can most of the time tell).

The geometry of could use some refinement (which is possible with the high resolution of the bing and esri imagery now) and alignment is a meter or so off in some places (I've verified the alignment of the available ESRI and Bing imagery for our area here, and I'm quite confident that it is correct within a few cm now).

The only necessary change of kerb type I noticed was with the new construction around Barnes Street, which I've done in changeset/111134096

I'll map all missing kerbs and refine the geometry of existing ones in the area in the, hopefully not too far, future.

Oh, one thing that makes kerb mapping a lot easier in JOSM is to the Colored Kerbs map style I created. I think it should be available for everyone in the map styles list in Preferences.

When the type of kerb changes for longer distances between e.g. rolled and raised, I split and tag them appropriately.

But I have to confess that I've taken often shortcuts in places where the kerb is lowered in one spot because of e.g. a footpath or driveway and in that case I've not split the way and instead just tagged barrier=kerb, kerb=lowered/flush on the node where the kerb and highway intersect.

With all the driveways I've mapped that has greatly reduced to work compared to having to split the kerb way every time.

I'm currently working my way down Discovery Drive and across Diamond Jubilee Way, and will have a more detailed look at the kerbs in Mango Hill Village after that.