Hope it's okay I deleted the construction cycleway way/1377140432/history and replaced it with way/1459444640 with segregated=yes since the path is now open and doesn't have any physical separation between the foot and cycle parts, just paint (unless they are planning on adding physical separation later)

Good one Hugh. I was watching this to see who'd be first to update it, I really thought it was going to be ❤️‍🔥.

also for way/573748608 I think it's simpler to omit turn:lanes=*. Because in general the way within the intersection may be used by different vehicles coming from different directions and the turn:lanes usually only make sense leading up to the intersection for that reason.

If you think it should have turn:lanes, we might need to have a wider community discussion.

only one lane from Russel Av can turn right into Forest Way.

should way/288405561/history really have a turn:lanes tagged? given there's no markings once you enter the intersection and the way is used by both traffic going straight/right from Ferguson into the intersection, but also from Warringah Road eastbound turning into Starkey St, where there is only one lane turning.

there are no marked turn lanes on way/962492250 so I don't think it should have a turn:lanes=* tag at all. Even if it did, the turn lanes would stop at the northbound carriageway, not continue through to the southbound one.

Same for the lane count, I'm not sure if we should have a lane count here since there are no markings, but even if it did it would be lanes=1 since the forward and back share the same space.

grumble grumble... in my view this is excessive to split such small sections due to a small barrier in the middle and how they were mapped before was much simpler.

I don't think your changes to way/962492250 are correct, there's no marked lanes, if anything either turn shares the same space, so it's a bit like lanes=1, but I'm not sure it should be tagged.

turn:lanes, theres no marked turn lanes on this part, and you've got none:right coming for Forest Way to Russell Avenue?

"Authorised Vehicles Only" should be access=private, it allows deliveries and emergency services access.

access=no would mean no access by anyone, completely closed.

hi you have dragged the tree into the ocean node/13332744765/history

I can't find any signage or markings on the ground indicating way/470076706 is for bicycles, I would need to survey again though in case there is a sign at one of the entrances

It seems like these change continuously and you're endlessly updating the tags. If these values change so often do you need to have these updated in OSM?

I've fixed 1, 2 and 3. I've left 4 since I checked the historical 1982 imagery which shows it's possible there was once a driveway there, but still in general "not:" would be better when just trying to indicate this to other mappers.

4. way/1445927361/history "abandoned:" is best suited where there's evidence that it was once a driveway which is now no longer used. If you simply want to make it clear to future mappers that this is no a driveway since they might assume that from the lot boundaries, then best to use the "not:" prefix.

3. You've changed the geometry of the driveway, in a way that no longer matches the aerial imagery, you've moved it to run through trees and garages, apparently based on the Land Parcels alone.

2. I'm not sure how you can tell the surface=paved, at least for me looking at the imagery it's not clear and there's no street level imagery here. I think best to leave off the surface until it can be surveyed on the ground.

I see you added a new address for 11 Burrendong Pl at node/13286395669/history but it already exists at node/7066252214.

I don't believe we should duplicate it as that leads to ambiguity and it's best to place it at the residence. The routing engine can resolve which street it's accessed from based on the mapped driveway.

Do you think you can group similar changes together, doing one change per changeset makes reviewing much harder, takes longer to inspect changes, longer to sort through the changeset feed.

changeset/172435051 this, could you comment on that changeset with any further information?

but does it exist on the ground? In your previous edit you set access=private but now deleted?

https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/1424686327

if it's non-existent, fine to delete, but if it exists but not accessible then access=private is the way to go.

osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F