ok, but we can't use Google Street View for mapping in OSM, just your local knowledge, surveys or sources we can legally use.

I've reverted this changeset in changeset/141628045 since it had incorrectly dragged a node to the wrong location.

While okay to map it as a node or on the main office building, I think where possible it's best to place the tags on the whole site area, as this then captures all the motel buildings and grounds. I've made changes here to do that.

If you feel it adds value, then by all means go for it. Someone might find it useful.

It's most useful for larger blocks where it provides information about which street and where exactly access to a residence may be from. Especially where a residence may be addressed to one street but accessed via another street.

ps this applies to all your other recent changes too.

access=no would imply it's unusable by any vehicle including fire trucks, emergency services, and NPWS maintenance vehicles. Is that the case? (this would be motor_vehicle=no) Or is it just closed to general public vehicles? (this would be motor_vehicle=private).

Additionally do you know the situation for bicycles/mountain bikes? Because a top level access=no also captures bicycles. If the signage says something no "no access, walkers only" then access=no + foot=designated would be okay, if the sign just says no vehicles or maintenance vehicles only then motor_vehicle=private + foot=yes + bicycle=yes might be better.

There's some documentation at osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Vehicle_Access

thanks, fyi it should be either disused:amenity=bar or amenity=bar but not both tags. it looks like from your edit you've added the disused by left the amenity=bar intact. I've fixed this now.

hi unfortuantly this doesn't seem to matchup with the other addresses here. The address you've modified was for Unit 4, 31 Rosella Cl, but now you've set it as Unit 4, 350 Benhiam St, but all the other units 1 through 13 are still mapped as 31 Rosella Cl. Are all the other units in that block at 350 Benhaim St? Does 31 Rosella Cl not exist there?

From the imagery it looks like it might be a combined basketball and netball court?

hi, it may well be dangerous, but the kerb ramps on either side imply there is an unmarked crossing here, therefore we should map it as such, and we should restore the prior unmarked crossing tags.

Routing engines can take this into account when routing or when people are doing network analysis from OSM data.

hi, the Grose Valley was already mapped as an area at relation/12107614 but the node you've added sits out side that. Do you think the Grose Valley relation should be extended into where you've placed the node or should that be Govetts Gorge node/8236010768

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

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.