plus you've messed up the branch node/10711420922/history

addr:postcode and addr:state are not necessary here since we have the boundaries of these in OSM already.

The addr:housenumber and addr:street can all be derived from the addr details on the center way/256702729/history there's no need to repeat this on each feature.

The use of the source tag is misleading since the source of the features is my survey, not the website.

The website tag should where possible be for the specific store, not the whole brand.

You've messed up the opening_hours using opening_hours=opening_hours=...

Phone numbers should follow the format at osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Australian_features#Phone_Numbers

Shouldn't name:en=Bennelong Point ? Otherwise we can't distinguish the different parts of the dual name?

I was then going to update name:etymology to name:en:etymology so the tagged etymology correctly relates to the right name between the two dual names.

I was planning on going through the GNR Dual Names to update in OSM but realised we don't actually have a documented consensus about how to handle them.

Thanks indeed the old name was officially discontinued https://proposals.gnb.nsw.gov.au/public/geonames/ecf1c667-60a9-471d-8be6-c9030c014a80 then the new name was officially assigned https://proposals.gnb.nsw.gov.au/public/geonames/791f60fa-e11a-4ad4-a530-1b0b693e5472 by the Geographic Names Board.

I think I've fixed up all the ones I could see for now.

I'm still noticing a lot of duplicated streams here, for example way/210580351 which it looks like you've extended to duplicate on top of the existing stream?

I realise this is from a year ago, but if it's an issue from your workflow it would be good to correct it. In JOSM it's a good idea to have View > Draw boundaries of downloaded data turned on and only edit data within that area.

I've left a comment at changeset/161227094 to try and gather more information.

Another user has reverted your additions of MTB routes in the area based on the claim that these are unauthorised.

The current guidance for signposted closed tracks is at osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Paths which maps them as access=no and under the abandoned or disused lifecycle prefix.

Can you provide any additional information on these changes on how you think we should best map these unauthorised trails?

Hello again, we've discussed this previously at changeset/144773386.

Please see osm.wiki/Why_can't_I_delete_this_trail%3F and osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Paths in particular the "Current Guidance" section, which shows how these features can be tagged in OSM.

I don't doubt you at all that the "Parks department" is the only authority that has the right to make trails through National Parks. The same way that it's the OpenStreetMap community that is the only authority that decides what information we map and how we represent it in our database.

In a similar way to the US's Trails Stewardship Initiative https://openstreetmap.us/our-work/trails/ it would be good to have more collaboration between all stakeholders in Australia.

I'm going to revert these changes as they appear to be going against the current guidance, and given your comment "Unauthorised track" it seems there is no dispute that these "Illegal tracks" exist on the ground.

You can also set ref=266

My view is that cycleway should be primarily built/designed/signposted for bicycles, footway should be primarily build/designed/signposted for walkers and path for anything not really built at all just people started walking/cycling there and the ground / track formed.

lets see https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema/pull/1422 I just want it there so we can translate it as "Granny Flat"

changeset/161156261 I've deleted the duplicate you've add, but wasn't sure about the tags, please go ahead and update the tags and/or geometry of the existing ways as needed.

sorry to be blunt but you've just dumped your way on top of the existing ways. Given this was already existing, you'll need to make any changes to the existing ways instead of a new one. I'll clean this up.

way/1078210123/history looks like building=annexe is the defacto tag now

Thanks. I've cleaned this up in changeset/161079913
You needed to split the street at that point and delete the section which isn't really a road. Then I added noexit=yes to make it clear you can't exit there.

If you've surveyed to confirm, then this looks good.

I tried to check on the imagery at https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=777669173118627&focus=phobut I think it's unlikely there are steps based on this.

https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/173411374

the tag is highway=cycleway not highway=cycleways

I'll fix this

These two, you can see in the history

way/1342563707/history
way/635998948/history

please let me know if this is wrong, I couldn't find much detail on the wiki