This is a 6 story office building, I would be surprised if a small nutritionist business took up the whole building. The street level imagery indicates there is likely multiple tenants here. If you have office space here best to just add a node within the building, rather than on the building.

Further your website https://www.rosiewareclinicalnutrition.com.au/services lists no office address and says all services are online/phone only "I am currently only offering online consultations within Australia.", so I'm not sure adding this here is best.

Based on this I'll remove the tags from the building.

HGV, busses, taxis are all covered under `motor_vehicle`. There's not much left outside of motor_vehicle, foot, and bicycle.

I understand your point that you're applying a default of no then applying the exceptions, but why should that be access=no vs access=yes. Unlike a military base which might have a general "no access" restriction regardless of mode, a general access restriction doesn't really apply here. If anything it would be there is general public access, but specific modes are restricted due to regulation.

I've reverted this changeset since it deleted many features which quite likely still exist including a waterway=stream, a natural=wood and highway=track.

Please see osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F and osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property for details on why features which exist on private property may still exist in OpenStreetMap.

If there are firetrails, driveways or walking tracks which don't allow the public to use but do exist on the ground you can use access=private to mark them as no public access.

Thanks, but actually these are semi detached not detached building=semidetached_house

is the noexit meant to be no exit from the building or no exit from the inclinator? either way it appears from the imagery that the house below is accessed via the driveway, into the building (or carport) then down the inclinator or steps to the house, either way this node is just in the middle between the driveway and inclinator.

why is this one noexit?

Yeah that sounds good.

There's not really any best practice around this so really up to the mappers preference. For me if the refuge island is long I might map it as footway=traffic_island, but if it's only 1 or 2 meters I would just use a node with crossing:island=yes.

If the shared paths don't have markings how do we know it's a shared path? Sorry I'm not from WA so I don't know how it works, but osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Footpath_Cycling indicates you don't have the same footpath cycling restrictions we have in NSW, so would be permitted.

Usually if bicycles are explicitly signposted or marked it would be bicycle=designated but if bicycles are allowed but not explicitly signed or marked then bicycle=yes, but again I don't have the local knowledge so take this with caution.

I've added bicycle=yes since it seems implied that bicycles can continue through due to the shared path of either side. I've also updated the tagging of the refuge island section.

I don't think it's useful to tag each residential property as leisure=garden.

This has since been fixed.

all I could find in existing documentation is osm.wiki/Good_practice#Map_curves_with_an_appropriate_number_of_nodes which doesn't really tell us much...

I'm not a fan of adding superfluous nodes to make it look prettier, after all where do you stop you could keep adding arbitrary nodes to retain the smoothness at higher and higher zooms. Extra nodes make it much harder for future mappers to make changes as needed. Instead I believe we should model to get the topology correct and the best alignment then leave it to downstream consumers to apply their own post processing for additional smoothing for display.

Furthemore you've removed "dumplings" as a value from these instead of converting it to "dumpling" per cuisine=dumpling

I'm fine with converting the tag per the wiki, but not removing it completly.

local practice is we don't include addr:state, addr:postcode, addr:suburb since these are derived from the admin boundaries.

I'm okay with converting to singular but not sure how "dumplings;asian" became "asian;noodle" when simply converting to singular? Should be "asian;dumpling"

shouldn't "parking:lane:left" be converted to "parking:left=lane" rather than "parking:left=yes" or is it converted to "yes" if the options have changed in the new schema and it needs to be checked?

PS. I've updated the documentation around community car parks and bicycle parking at osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Transportation#%22Park_&_Ride%22_Commuter_Car_Parks if I've missed anything please feel free to fix or let me know.

PS. You might want to drop into the OSM Hackathon tomorrow https://geogeeks.org/2025/0514_osm-hackathon-city-of-canning.html

Within the wider OSM ecosystem, there are tools people have built to try and compare and flag differences, but I note that you can't just assume that OSM is wrong and a particular government dataset is correct if there are differences, so each case should be addressed on a case by case basis.

OSM tends to follow the on the ground rule and maps based on signage. All datasets may contain errors or may be outdated, including OSM and government published data.

It wouldn't be that hard to build a tool to compare road names from OSM to Main Roads WA.

There's no automatic ingesting of data, it's up to mappers to decide what to incorporate. There have been coordinated efforts in the past by Microsoft's mapping team to resolve differences in road names between OSM and government datasets.

I believe the resolution in those prior cases you noted was to update them in OSM, but there were still done case by case.