Thanks for your contributions to OSM.

You may want to use more descriptive names for your changesets that actually say what changes you made. If you find that you can't describe the changes you made in a single statement, you may want to consider splitting your work into individual change sets that concentrate on a specific change to allow you to label them all appropriately. Thanks!

Thanks for the quick fix! It's unfortunate that the definitions of the plain lanes=x tag (counts full sized vehicle lanes) and :lanes suffix tags (can include cycleways and various other things which are not counted by the lanes=x tag) is inconsistent with each other.

Same as the other. One of the :lanes is a cycleway which should not be counted as part of the simple lanes=x tag

Thanks for destroying the previously correct lanes tagging. One of the "lanes" represented in the :lanes tags is a cycleway, which should not be counted in the simple "lanes" count, which only counts fullsized vehicle lanes.

"Still it is suggested to let the residential landuse end at the actual border and not extend it to the centre of the road for various reasons, e.g. to simplify later refinements (highway landuse), not to locate things on the public land (road) in adjacent landuses and to avoid inexperienced mappers accidentally connecting roads to landuses rather than other roads."

It's one thing to be lazy when you add new landuse yourself. It's another thing when you purposefully go out of your way to change the work other mappers have already been doing to do this properly.

"Still it is suggested to let the residential landuse end at the actual border and not extend it to the centre of the road for various reasons, e.g. to simplify later refinements (highway landuse), not to locate things on the public land (road) in adjacent landuses and to avoid inexperienced mappers accidentally connecting roads to landuses rather than other roads."

It's one thing to be lazy when you add new landuse yourself. It's another thing when you purposefully go out of your way to change the work other mappers have already been doing to do this properly.

This is by far not the only changeset where surface areas have been wrongly merged to the road center-line. I fear this is going to take a massive reverting of 100+ changesets to clean up and fix.

I would like to kindly ask you to stop vandalizing existing landuse and similar area boundaries and not extend them to the road center-line. These areas stop at the kerb line and do not include the area that belongs to the road surface.

Please revert this and the other 100 or so changesets where you've been vandalizing existing mapping efforts, otherwise I think this will need to be referred to the DWG.

TIA.

Specifically, bike lanes are not counted in the lanes tag, which counts full sized vehicle lanes.

But they are shown as separate lanes in the different :lanes suffix tags, which are not limited to full sized vehicle lanes.

Don't know how many other ways you've vandalized like this, but the data is incorrect now.

The lanes tag counts only full sized lanes, of which there are 3 here.

The :lanes suffix tags includes all lanes, including bicycle ways, which is why there are 4 lanes described in the :lanes suffix tags, but the lanes tag was saying 3

when I looked for a source for that data I found osm.wiki/Data.australia.gov.au/Queensland and used that.

If that information is incorrect it should be fixed.

Is the PSMA import imminent? This should only have been done right before the import, or even as part of the import change set, because without this area (which btw was traced pretty exactly from cadastral data) Nominatim is going to wrongly associated a lot of addresses in North Lakes with Deception Bay, Rothwell, Dakabin, and Mango Hill (based on the distance from the address to the current place nodes, picking the closest one)...

Oh, also, I would recommend using ESRI Word Imagery instead of Bing for the area around North Lakes as it has higher resolution, is more current and sharper, and after crosschecking with various other sources, seems to be much better aligned then Bing in this area.

The alignment of the cricket field in the North Lakes Woodside sports field seem off? It is as far as I can tell centered exactly in the middle between the two soccer fields and with exactly the same alignment. There are no markings on the grass that match the outer oval and I don't know enough about how cricket fields are laid out to say that with absolute certainty (which is why I didn't change anything).

way/625864666 should probably be access=destination to prevent routing software from using that as a regular shortcut from Anzac Av to Joyner Circuit...

looking at the history of that house, I notice that shortly after freebeer reverted that change, alarkin328 edited again to remove the restored address information once more?

Also, please keep in mind that imagery is not always correctly aligned. Most of the "fixed" geometry was correct (or at least more correct) when utilizing imagery that had it's offset corrected using additional information (gps tracks, castrate extract, strava heat maps, ...)

When "fixing" geometry. You need to take into account the lane attributes if present!

Activate the "lane and road attributes" map style in JOSM to see them.

Especially in cases along a motorway where a merge lane or exit lane temporarily joins, do not simply blindly move the way into the middle of the (temporary increased) lane count.

The way is not always in the exact middle of the lanes described in the attribute (see placement tag, it's described in detail in the wiki and the lane and road attributes plugin will render it correctly).

It's preferable to keep the way centered in the "original" lanes of the motorway instead of having it weave back and forth every time a lane gets temporarily added for a short stretch.

TIA.

What's the rational for adding the no_u_turn restrictions for every single entry/exit to a roundabout where there are two physically separated ways?

We discussed exactly that in the #osm channel a few weeks ago, and IIRC came to the conclusion that this is not necessary or desirable.

There are no "no u-turn" signs at these locations, it's simply physically a really stupid idea to attempt a u-turn there.

Which is something that routing software should be able to derive from the geometry of the ways.

AFAIK, restriction relations are meant to represent signed legal restrictions only.

Well, I tagged this exactly according to the information at leisure=golf_course but the rendering looks like crap. Where are the tees? fairway? green? the hole?