I can't think of any reason why the suburb/state/country would be any different to the existing boundaries.

Even if they were different, there is no way to tag that this is the case and when people do QC checks they'll get flagged and then changed to match anyway.

The other thing is that iD seems to prepopulate the fields anyway, so in effect it's just copying information that's already been mapped. I had a bit of a play around with it here and it suggested that the suburb name was 2085! So it doesn't even necessarily copy in the correct information.

This one I only looked at because it was flagged by Osmose as having opening hours errors. When I check the other tagging it is just easier and quicker to delete the duplicate information than it is to go off and check it.

name:en is the name that should be rendered for an English speaking audience. Australia is predominately an English speaking country, as a result the value of name and name:en should be the same. If you don't think
Bennelong Point / Dubbagullee is the most common name in English for this POI then it should not be in the name tag.

Also includes some crossing details in the surrounding area.

Hi,

If you are going to map cycleways as separate ways, would you please connect them to the road ways where they join. For example here node/12482140294 Otherwise routers will not be able to tell cyclist that they can use these as there is no way to get from the road to the path.

I have fixed these ones.

Thanks.

Hi,

Why exactly did you feel the need to remove the crossing tags at various crossing eg:
node/11162497901
node/11162497898
node/11162497897
node/11162497902

etc?

This isn't really a secondary road. It doesn't link any population centres to the primary network. One of its features is that there's nothing on it.

I don't think it would even rate tertiary.

But this isn't the place to discuss this. I'd suggest on the forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/oceania/73

Reverting because these changesets broke a number of things and the source of data for the proposed road is not clear, which means we can't tell if we can use it in OSM.

changeset/160885910

Reverting because these changesets broke a number of things and the source of data for the proposed road is not clear, which means we can't tell if we can use it in OSM.

changeset/160885910

Hi,

Thanks for your edit. If you are mapping roundabouts please make sure that the inward and outward ways are not sharing common nodes.

I have fixed this one.

Thanks.

I'm working off aerial imagery and there is nothing visible here. Guess I missed the entrance tag, although that's not alway conclusive either.

<cough>changeset/160493243</cough>

@MapSpot to be fair the naming theme is *ludicrously* British.

If these were the surnames' of the occupants, then it would be the greatest coincidence of all time.

See note/4556906

Hi nevw,

I went to try and fix this one, but it turns out we don't have permission to use the data source (https://www.aec.gov.au/electorates/gis/licence.htm).

Not sure how to resolve this one.

Or if you want to go old school there is the talk-au mail list https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-May/014622.html

Hi mueschel,

Would you please move this discussion the the OSM Community forum. Either https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/122863 or the original discussion https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/122628

Thanks.

Hi Geoff,

The highways would have been the cart paths that got deleted.

Hi,

You appear to have put the operator in under opening_hours.

I have fixed this one.

Hi,

This changeset deleted way/479837822, which is part of the suburb boundaries.

Please be careful when deleting things in iD, as it may not tell you that you've broken something.

Thanks.