Hi

Please don't feel the need to add names to every path. See:

osm.wiki/Names

Thanks

Hi,

If something is wide enough to drive a two track vehicle down (like way/392050423 ) it should be a track not a footway:

highway=track

Thanks.

That link should have been:

leisure=nature_reserve

Hi,

This:

way/53632602

is not a park it's a nature reserve:

leisure=nature reserve

Thanks.

Hi,

The name of this way:

way/446984502

should be Tuggeranong Creek not Lake Tuggeranong as it represents the creek that runs through the lake:

waterway=*

Hi,

This "park" is on private land. In OSM parks have to be public:

leisure=park

Some of these have already been reverted:
changeset/44225111

I'd say you could safely revert all of the changesets.

Hi,

You shouldn't be copying from Google maps as we don't have permission to do that.

You can use the LPI base map which in iD is found under the background control.

Thanks.

Hi,

It's been six months now and nothing has turned up on the mailing list.

Please create a page on the wiki and upload the explicit permission that you received eg:

osm.wiki/Attribution/data.brisbane.qld.gov.au_explicit_permission

Thanks.

Also fixed note #850951

Do you have a source for the name "Murwillumbah Golf Course Footpath"?

Does way/464199650

really have quotation marks in it's name?

This changeset has been reverted at #45121044

Someone else seems to also be putting this in:

changeset/45120345

This changeset has been reverted at #45121021

alt_name maybe?

Gauge rather than Guage?

Street sign for way/173924173

says "Orchard Street".

What's happened to the golf course?

Depends on what you mean by the basemap. The meta data is for the underlying data so if you extract the data rather than tracing then it's up-to-date to within 10 days. I don't know how often the tiles that get served for the visual map are re-rendered so it may take some time for it to show up on this.

The other thing is that unless the property boundary is re-surveyed for some reason what's in the database will be what was digitised from the paper map.

1. After typing in my comment the other day I was pondering why the boundaries are that way at Barrenjoey and I've realised that the boundary follows the low tide mark. (Also means that the lighthouse reserve must of had a combination of high/low tide boundaries).

2. I'd also previously looked up the metadata and discovered that a lot of the coastline and river data had been digitised from old maps. Which is the reason why I don't get too worried about it. I suspect that the error between the coastline and the data is usually more than the difference between high/low mean water. Also trying to visually identify these from an single aerial view is also going to be hard.

3. The road boundaries are a common feature. The original subdivision of the land included reserves for roads. Where the surrounding land is also owned by the Crown they seem to not particularly care so the road winds in and out of the reserve. But the National park is defined as being lot i of DP n + lot j of DP m etc and the road reserve itself is not in the park. You can see these all over the place including some where there is a "paper road" with nothing on the ground.