Exactly, I'm trying to ensure the natural=coastline tag and other tags are reflecting the natural environment on the ground based on my ground surveys of the area.

As I mentioned on the tagging thread for me, based on on the ground surveys and local knowledge Botany Bay (relation/1214649)
isn't part of the open ocean but Bondi Bay
(node/926183187) is, and I'd like OSM to be able to distinguish the two cases.

Just the same way as the internal shoreline of Botany Bay is different to the coastline along Bondi Beach, your proposed tags don't offer any way to differentiate these different shorelines/coastlines.

Tagging rias and pelagic coastlines may prove to offer some way to do this.

This is going to be an uphill battle , so I'm going to pivot and look into using something like coastline=pelagic from wikipedia "A pelagic coast refers to a coast which fronts the open ocean, as opposed to a more sheltered coast in a gulf or bay." on the oceanic coastline because I need separation of these shorelines within these bays and the coastline facing the ocean. Combined with creating my own sea/ocean polygon which excludes rias. I'd like OSM to be able to differentiate between a sea/ocean (excluding rias) and flooded rias such as Botany Bay. I thought the natural=coastline tag would provide the sea/ocean polygon, but I guess not since I don't consider Woolooware Bay the sea, as people wouldn't say you're at sea or in the ocean when in that bay, I'll continue this discussion on the list to work out the best way to tag rias.

Thank you, I can see that makes sense, the bay area should either be within the ocean or some other waterbody like a lake, river, etc. So the blue water rendering would come from the waterbody or ocean and the natural=bay area is there to label the area.

I disagree with tagging the insides here as coastline as it doesn't match the description of natural=coastline on the wiki.

In my view the solution here to remove the coastline tag from the inside of the bay and work out what kind of waterbody it is and tag it as that. Perhaps riverbank will work?

Let's discuss over at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-March/031856.html.

In the meantime I've reverted this change. You'll see in the history that I tagged this as natural=bay a few years ago and think this is the best way to tag, unfortunately it's a big area and the current advice on the wiki says renders shouldn't render it as water, which breaks maps in a severe way. So I think we should keep it as is until we can resolve that.

These bays have been changed between natural=water and natural=bay many times in their history, unfortuantly most renderers don't yet support natural=bay areas. Even the wiki notes that "they should not be rendered in solid color indicating water themselves".

What's the harm in leaving as natural=water, water=bay until the renders are caught up?

Not all data is equal. Different types of features like roads vs lookouts could dramatically vary in accuracy, even within the same feature types, the accuracy in the LPI Base Map can and does vary.

Since we don't know the where each feature in the LPI Base Map came from, I don't think it should have precedence over a good consumer grade gps and or lpi imagery.

OSM is not a clone of the LPI Base Map, I feel a ground survey should prevail. It might be better to use the OSM notes feature to add a note where you think the LPI Base Map is correct, so a ground survey can be done rather than adding duplicates.

For Tuckers Lookout, I have been to node/691125312 and know there is a lookout there, but I can't remember if it was signed with a name.

The existing node has been there for the past 4 years node/691125312/history

Next time it would be great if you could post on the mailing list your intention to do an import and we can check the process to make sure things like this aren't missed.

Another one I just fixed up changeset/47189402

> So these duplicates you have noted ... were they only campsites? Or anything else?

I keep finding issues across all your LPI Base Map imports.

eg. I just deleted node/4380404863 since it was already mapped as node/691125312

> I will still have to scan manually for displaced ones.

Agreed, although it would have been better to do this before so you're not importing existing data and creating duplicates.

How did you check for duplicates?

eg. you added node/4333395907/ but it already existed as relation/6396344

I've been seeing a lot of duplicated features from your Base Map imports.

For way/455660812 is it really named "Unmarked track"? There is a tag for unmarked tracks, trail_visibility=no.

When you named Pindar Pool, you cited a copyrighted source, I think it's best to use survey or local_knowledge souces.

The LPI Base Map says "The Hills Shire Council" is here, is that what's there now?

You'll need to add some tags to this to say what is is, check out healthcare=*

Hi, what information are you trying to add? Do you need any help?

Also part of the driveway way overlaps the road, which should be fixed. And is it really oneway?

like your other changesets, don't add a name unless there is a proper name. Also you can just use access=private, and remove all the mode specific keys. See access=*

the amenity=bench already describes this as a bench, so save the name tag only when the bench has a special name.

Is this really a grit_bin or is it amenity=waste_basket ?

Also since there is no name, just leave it out per osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

> Yes that's correct - left only into Dune Walk, but you can turn left and right from Foreshore Boulevard.

Good.

> I've had to add two sets of lights for both directions of road, even though there is only one set of lights due to cutting through the medium strip.

That's okay, this is generally how it's done for dual carriageways.

> I believe I've just managed to amend the parking aisle to extend beyond Dune Walk as is now in real life.

Perfect.

> They've joined the perpendicular road to Dune Walk, so I have amended that to connect.

Perfect.

> I've also removed traffic lights at the park's entry, as well as removed the cycleway through the centre.

If that reflects reality now, great.

I've made a few other minor fixes around here.

No worries and thanks for your edits here, very much appreciated and welcome.

The way you've mapped it now, it means you can turn left but not right into Dune Walk. And you can turn both left and right into Foreshore Boulevard from Captain Cook Drive.

Dune Walk is very close to that existing service road to the park, are they separated?

To map traffic lights for example at node/4707492421, use highway=traffic_signals, and reserve the name for real names, so in this case there is probably no name so just leave it out.