Thanks. The OSM Wiki says for leisure=park "A park is an area of open space provided for recreational use, usually designed and in semi-natural state with grassy areas, trees and bushes. Parks are often but not always municipal."

This is an area of open space for recreational (Refreshment of one's mind or body after work through activity that amuses or stimulates; play.). As you can see in the Mapillary link, it's a place for people to sit and refresh with trees etc. so I think it is fine as leisure=park, surface=paving_stones (so it's different from a grassy park)?

You're right it's small, but data consumers can easily filter out small parks based on the geometry if they only want to show big parks ;).

Have you been here and surveyed the area or was this judgment made from something else?

I'm only judging from the Mapillary imagery.

I noticed the cafe you added node/4972926520 was already mapped in OSM node/4331958057

I've deleted your one and kept the one which was there first, just updating the position slightly to where you had it.

Got it, I was confused as the changeset comment was "hotel name change".

It would be awesome if you mentioned this in the changeset comment, something like "removing duplicate library already existing at node/4621800012". Thanks!

PS. it's great that you're using changeset comments, they are super helpful for others to understand intentions and what you're trying to do. I can see here you've used the same comment as last changeset, I know it's easy to make that mistake, I have too, so keep in mind of that next time. Cheers.

That's right, the beach is still there, so if you only want to remove the name, just delete the name tag.

I reverted your changeset since the beach is still there, but you can go in and just fix the name.

On the otherhand there are no markings on the ground, and it might be better to add tags to the rock to indicate it's passable so routers can choose to go over the rock.

I can see where you're coming from, and honestly I'm not sure what we should have in OSM here, but the path from Burning Palms to Figure of Eight Pool was marked as trail_visibility=no which means pathless so no evident trail on the ground. This passage is very well used by people so I'd argue it's verifiable by going there on the weekend and seeing all the people walk it, even though you can't make a path out on the ground.

Then there is way/384742095/history last time I checked there was a path evident on the ground, are you saying this is now completly grown over such that no path is visible anymore? I think that's the only circumstance it should be removed, otherwise adding trail_visibility and access tags can be used if it's not as "important" as the other paths.

Hey mate,

I think it's better to not snap things like parks, parking etc to the road, and instead try to mark out the exact extent which doesn't normally extend out until the road center line.

If for cartographic reasons that effect is desired it's better to do that as a post processing step on top of OSM.

Cheers.

This node somehow got caught up with the road. Instead of deleting the tags I've restored it's position and detached it from the way in changeset/52654782

If you've surved that there is no library then that's fine, but I guess you're just deleting it since it was incorrectly attached to the road.

https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/node/4370846255

Isn't way/77083928/history landuse=grass?

Could you explain the motives behind deleting relation/1515434/history#map=16/-33.9956/151.1453 ? Thanks.

Hi,

Could you please explain the reasoning behind deleting this? Checking out this place on Mapillary https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/7CZ003bc8rnH_H8kADqiEg it looks like there is something there. Given the part was only added a month ago, it seems like it's trying to map the facility which is there.

Hi there, did you really mean to delete this beach?

Hi Miles,

Thanks for contributing to OSM. However it appears you've used a copyrighted source of data here which we don't have a license to use. Could you please post back any details I'm missing?

Mind if I ask which routing software you're having the issue with?

The buildings were done in changeset/42406779 which used Bing so they are fine, and the squaring is imagery agnostic. It's just the street addresses mavi reverted. @Pierce could you confirm where the addresses came from?

here.com as a custom imagery source? Surely that's a big no-no?

Similar to node/18260888 I've added some extra tags to your SLSC's.

This place probably got a 3rd party SEO company to do their SEO. The same place that's been going crazy adding incorrectly formatted opening_hours, phone and payment method tags...

I'm +1 for this, if these recurrent SEO operators still can't get the tagging syntax right and don't bother replying to changeset comments then by all means remove tags which are invalid and create a mess in OSM.

I wish these operators would use the same username rather than creating a new user for each business they try to SEO.

I concur, it's better for bicycle routing engines using OSM to favour actual infrastructure over routes because the presence of a route says nothing about the infrastructure present or it's suitability. That said, route actually marked still should have some weight since they can be easier to follow/navigate through due to the signage.

I'm finding a lot of routes are marked out eg. https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-33.8071108611168&lng=151.20884280554696&z=17&panos=true&pKey=IFvDJTUmGb9mnMjrXe70Ag&focus=photo&x=0.5568584308144718&y=0.5578228919081532&zoom=1.6065056290744557

If it's marked as a shared path on the RMS map, but not on the ground, I would have thought you still can't ride on the footpath there...?

The only ways left in this relation now are mostly unconnected short segments so based on what you've said and what I'm seeing on the ground for the other ones I just removed, I'll remove the rest.