node/6715096557/history isn't "Colourful Yunnan", that's already mapped at way/916580298. I'll revert it back to disused:shop.

hi Kyle, looks like you changed https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/1090861305 to highway=cycleway, I just confirmed it's still signposted as "bicycles dismount" and I can't see anything to indicate it's a cycleway (I think if there is a cycleway that has a small section as bicycles dismount it could still be highway=cycleway + bicycle=dismount, but I'm not sure if that's the case here). What was the basis for changing it from footway to cycleway?

The way originally split from https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/90252662 when in 2010 it was created with highway=footway + lcn=yes.

I'm not sure which route it's meant to be part of but I think based on the bicycles dismount signage and no other indication it's a cycleway highway=footway is a better fit.

I'm of the view that highway=footway should be used for walking paths that have been built and highway=path for just a worn path from usage. In particular if it's signposted as a walking path it gives strength to being higher importance and therefore highway=footway compared with highway=path.

However I realise that other mappers generally use highway=path for any bushwalking track and highway=footway for essentially a non-bushwalking track.

Based on surface=metal and this being part of the major Coastal Walk track, I think highway=footway is better to raise the ranking compared to more minor walking tracks.

Is all this based on WMO Weather Radar Database data? What license is that data under? If we are mass adding their data and that data isn't sourced from a compatible license then we likely can't use it.

I think a better changeset comment would be "remove name from river area as it covers tributaries of the river with other names", I assume that's the reason for removing the name?

I think this change is okay for this reason, though I think it would be better to split up the area so we can have a named river area for "Georges River" then another named water area for "Salt Pan Creek" etc.

thanks, I also added informal=yes to mark it as informal.

This is a good start. For routing to work here you'll need to connect those footpaths across the road with a highway=footway + footway=crossing, ensuring there is a node where the footpath and road ways cross.

Thanks. I added a few extra tags to mark it specifically as a "multistory carpark under construction" rather than just a general building under construction.

looks good. If building=detached is more specific as a "freestanding" type of house (since building=house covers semi-detached or terraced too) building=*

Typically we'd just use operator:type=government regardless of the level of government, but operator:type=council does have some usage but it may be unclear since it might be confused with other "Councils" eg. "Cancer Council"

operator:type=*

I've added `operator:wikidata` as this helps data consumers associate more information about the operator from wikidata.

hi, why were the wikipedia and wikidata links deleted? They appear to be correct.

I assume what happened is the iD editor didn't let you change the name preset due to the wikidata/wikipedia tags being present? In that case the correct solution is to manually edit the tags to update the name without deleting the wikipedia/wikidata tags.

As such I've restored the deleted tags.

In OpenStreetMap edits like this aren't "requests", instead they immediately update the map, there's no review. Other mappers map choose to review your changes and request feedback or after discussion if we feel the changes are detrimental we might revert or roll back changes.

In this case your changes look good, and in line with community mapping standards. We get a lot of people come in and delete the whole road/track/driveway just because it's private, but we don't do that in OSM osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F so thanks for actually marking it as private instead.

Reviewing the changes here https://osmcha.org/changesets/124716683 significant parts of the changes here created two parallel ways for different lanes of the road where no physical separation exists, and therefore I've reverted some of this changes back to the prior state around where Frenchs Forest Road East meets Warringah Roah. Prior to these changes, Frenches Forest Road East was not split into two directions at the intersection and it's much cleaner and simpler if we don't split it for a simple minor median but if you insist we should then I've left it in tact for this location only.

The Bus Only turn lane was already mapped with :lanes tagging in 2020 and this change left those turn lanes and lanes=4 in tact while also adding a parallel way for the turn lane which is invalid.

Thanks, if it's not open to the general public, but only those living or working within the community you could set access=private, similar to how it's tagged further along.

are you sure these are already built or possibly still under construction?

There's too many conflicts for an automated revert, so I've fixed:

- way/54490663 street name on a power line
- way/1167362251 street name on a forest
- way/1111036712 street name on a construction landuse
- way/1167362242 street name on a construction landuse
- way/809948816 restored original trunk_link
- node/9404095695 traffic signals restored

way/1410857505 seems unlikely they would re-align this section after it was only just constructed?

roundabouts need junction=roundabout

I've added this.

Per prior comments, I've updated these to proposed roads.

It appears you're basing these edits soley on the DCS NSW Base Map and I assume other DCS datasets (as the road name does not appear on the base map, but does appear in addressing data)?

These datasets will include roads and lots that haven't started construction yet, as such unless you're basing your changes on other information and can confirm the status is otherwise, they should be marked as proposed roads.

I've made edits to update this.