This changeset has been reverted in changeset/166758428 please discuss further here or on the OSM Community Forum.

hi, I'm reverting this as it goes against past discussions within the local community, I would suggest to post in the OSM Community Forum if you'd like to propose a change or discuss this further.

For more context, in Australia we have administrative boundaries for "State/Territory" (admin_level=4) and "Local Governments" (admin_level=6), those are probably the only two levels used for "administrative" purposes. In ACT only we have Districts (admin_level=7) which can also be included.

When you consider boundaries set by the government you can add in "Suburb/Locality" boundaries (admin_level=9).

The "Sydney" place=city at relation/5750005 and "Melbourne" place=city at relation/4246124 cover the Sydney and Melbourne urban areas roughly considered part of those cities, although there's no formal definition so the extents are debatable. The boundaries aren't set by the government nor are they used for administrative purposes, so in actuality they probably shouldn't have an admin_level set at all, however we do and have been using 7. If you want to discuss this please do so on the OSM community forum. Further setting them as 6 would conflict with LGA boundaries which are also on level 6.

See also osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Land_and_boundaries#Administrative_Boundaries

lanes:forward and lanes:backward should add up to lanes. I've just fixed this and added more lane details to the street here.

node/8202040033
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=967348017368965

this isn't a crossing, it's where the cycle path from the footpath joins onto the road, it's not intended/built to cross from one side of the road to another, and likely this would be illegal since you're crossing the double lines and it's close to the dedicated crossing just to the east.

I've changed it to not:highway=crossing, but perhaps we could also add a turn restriction.

1. these road classification changes are a bit controversial, I'd encourage you to discuss changes about why you believe they should be changed. In the meantime, I've reverted these changes in changeset/166756107, however retained the correct addition of lanes=2 and surface=asphalt,
2. node/2820113434 was an address node and had the bus stop tags moved to it, given the address was for the house and there was no reason to loose the history of the bus stop tags.
3. way/5168728 appears to be a 2 lane road. lanes=1 is very uncommon for a two way road.

node/12861961858 could also be two different nodes, one for 4A and another for 4B

according to https://www.stmattsmanly.org.au/ their address is 1 Darley Road and therefore not addr:street=The Corso

I didn't hear back so I've updated this to access=private based on the website guidance.

I thought as a QA flag it's meant for where an end of a way is close to another way, so QA tools flag it as "maybe should be connected", but if it really shouldn't be connected because it doesn't connect in real life you use "noexit=yes" to say, "hey QA, no really you can't exit here it shouldn't be connected".

That's a bit different to "it does really connect in real life, but for various reasons we don't want or can't yet connect it, so I'll set noexit=yes so your QA tool stops flagging it". The latter would be best kept as an external list, similar to how StreetComplete "ignore" don't add a tag but instead maintain a private list of "ignored" quests.

In this case it likely does connect, so the QA is correctly flagging it as something that should be fixed.

People have different opinions of how much detail to map. If it's something that would be covered by a council development application, or something that might affect the development planning rules, I think it's reasonable to map. If it's covered by legislation, for example a heritage item on your property you can't destroy, or a protected tree you can't cut down, these should be reasonable to map. A trampoline that has no development/planning restrictions and isn't a fixed structure I don't see much point and mapping and think we probably shouldn't, but people still map them and consensus seems to be to allow it if visible from imagery.

hi, it would be helpful for others if you could explain your thinking and rationale in setting the place type each time you change it. See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

See access=*

On the other hand if you do want to be expclit on who can access use something like no top level access=* tag, but then tag motor_vehicle=permit + bicycle=permit + foot=permit. In this case it sounds like you get a 3 day transit permit, I'm not sure how long a distance but do they grant this for walkers walking through?

hang on, mode specific access tags like motor_vehicle override the top level access. So if you set access=permit and then motor_vehicle=yes you're saying you need a permit, unless you're driving then you don't need a permit. Since this isn't the case, I suggest you can just leave out the specific modes, unless some modes aren't allowed, then you can just set access=permit as a catch all.

Thanks. Based on access=permit

> This tag should be used in cases where a permit is required, but is routinely granted to everyone requesting it. In cases where access to permit is obstructed it would be more appropriate to tag these areas access=private or access=no. So access=permit does not apply where permit is rarely granted, or only granted in exceptional circumstances, or if obtaining it is complex or there is a long waitlist.

It does sound like access=permit is better.

Ok, so I guess it comes down to if protect_class is meant to be strictly applying based on IUCN category, or if it's just for IUCN-like categories that can apply even without a published IUCN.

A bit like if sac_scale applies only where we have an "official" SAC scale, or can it apply based on sac_scale like values, or if mtb:scale:imba only applies based an IMBA scale. In the latter two it's widespread to apply them without an assigned category or scale by choosing the "like" category.

I'm tempted to say protect_class should be the same, in that you can use 1-4 even without an IUCN and instead use iucn_level as being only for those officially assigned.

I'm not too fussed either way though, for me the protection_title is sufficient, but it would still be nice to have a globally consisnent way to say this areas is for wildlife/fauna protection, ie. "Habitat/Species Management Area" ie. protect_class=4.

Do you think we should then change all Wildlife Protection Area's to protect_class=7 given they are all 4 currently?

noexit=yes

> Use the noexit=yes tag at the end of a highway=* to indicate that there is no possibility to travel further by any transport mode along a formal path or route.

It seems like one can travel from the road to the house via the inclinator, adding a noexit=yes in the middle implies there is no possibility to travel further than that point, which is likely not the case.

It still should only be used when valid on the ground, not as a way to tell a validator to ignore a false positive.

Which validator?

I've removed the noexit=yes since the inclinator can likely be exited at either end, to access the residence and to access the street.

hi in this changeset you converted a main Brisbane CBD road into a video wall, without further justification I've reverted this changeset in changeset/166591920

hi I'm not sure what you were trying to do here, but your change wasn't related to traffic signs and broke the Brisbane City and Spring Hill boundary relations.

I've reverted this changeset in changeset/166591839

In my changeset from 2023-02 at changeset/133064253 I noted the construction then later that year I see you've removed the construction area and redrawn the demolished buildings even though construction was still ongoing? https://www.newgreenschatswood.com.au/news

We'll need to resurvey here...

it shows up on Sentinel-2 imagery so I've updated the geometry, it looks like you had it too big, I tried to keep the shape but it's quite hard without a higher resolution image.