shop=supermarket

You can add shop=supermarket so it shows up as a supermarket.

Yes, please do map footpaths, they make pedestrian routing more accurate and informative.

There are two ways to map the footpath. Using sidewalk tags on the road and as a seperate way. You can have both in use at the same time.

See osm.wiki/Sidewalks#Sidewalk_as_separate_way

In particular by mapping as a separate way "This method allows for a more spatially accurate representation of the pedestrian environment. In addition, it allows a more straightforward use of barrier=*, tactile_paving=*, kerb=*, surface=*.".

The only thing I'd add is use footway=sidewalk to mark it as the footpath/sidewalk. This helps people distinguish footways through parks etc from the footpath/sidewalk.

No response from the mapper, so I've gone ahead and undeleted the footways while leaving the new sidewalk tags on the highways as both can coexist.

Partially reverted in changeset/53516154

Undeleted with JOSM:
way/524640907 way/532523005 way/524635444 way/524635443 way/524635442 way/524640908 way/524640159 way/524641618 way/524640906 way/524633279 way/524640161

Glad to help. Be sure to sign up to the talk-au mailing list https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au. I'm organising an OSM event for later this month (will post details on the mailing list) and it would be a good opportunity to learn more about mapping and OSM, see what others are up to, and share what you're interested in.

> Ok then I understand, and I can test the routing by using ORSM and it's routing correctly with only the Left Only Turn.

Maybe, maybe not. Since the routing only get's updated with new data ever several hours I think we can't know for sure if it's using the new turn restrictions, or if it's just avoid going that way since way/151022092 was oneway=yes before. (ps. it's fine to just delete oneway=yes, as the default is oneway=no. It doesn't hurt to leave oneway=no in there but it would be confusing if every road had it. But in this case where you wan't to signal to other mappers that it's not oneway then that's okay)

I don't know what the point of the no-u-turn there is, if it's not signposted then it's best to leave it to routing engines to apply sensible defaults. You would expect all routing engines to never tell you to take a u-turn in the way your no-u-turn relation is set up already. We want to avoid adding no u turn relations to practically every intersection as it just makes it harder to edit without any benefit as defaults can be applied anyway.

You don't need a turn restriction for this kind of thing.

That diagram isn't showing what turn restrictions are in affect, it's showing you what ways you can select for the current turn restriction you are adding. So even with just the only_left_turn it will prevent routing straight through.

You could use something like https://imgbb.com/ ?

"according to the diagram" which diagram?

If the sign just says left turn only, then it should be mapped in OSM with an only_left_turn relation (and not with a no_straight_on as that is implied already by the only_left_turn).

How is this signposted on the ground? If it says left turn only then it's better to map it as only_left_turn rather than with the no_straight_on. only_left_turn implies you can't go straight or or turn right already.

You can't modify a changeset comment after you've saved it, but you can add a changeset comment like we are doing here. The changeset comment is helpful for others to understand what and why you changed something.

If you check the history of the way you're talking about at https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/151022092 you can see it was actually created by inas. No worries though.

Looking at the imagery, it doesn't look like there is a physical barrier and as you point out you can still make left and right turns from the Kingsway so you can't delete it otherwise routers wouldn't be able to direct people to make those right turns off the Kingsway.

What you suggest with adding the only_left_turn restrictions on Willarong Rd the way to go. Ideally you'd only add this tag where there is a sign or road marking indicating you can only make a left turn from Willarong.

PS. I also noticed that short segment https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/151022092 has oneway=yes, which means you can't turn right from Kingsway heading northbound, but looks like from the imagery that you can, so you might want to remove the oneway=yes tag.

The SEO business was removed already in an SEO cleanup, but I've also reverted the part which moved the footway.

+1 with discussing this change.

I tried to document the current situation at
https://gist.github.com/andrewharvey/6c55bff57b96481528cc4da974e69e35

In summary, I'm okay with how it is currently, but still think we should distinguish certain suburbs as higher ranking (eg. Parramatta vs Harris Park)

...aware that @TheSwavu also replied with a direct message. But worth noting that on the way down from the Blue Mountains there is a sign which says "Welcome to Sydney", which would indicate that the Blue Mountains shouldn't be part of Sydney.

I'm torn though, @TheSawvu raised good argements for including Blue Mountains in Sydney. At the end of the day anyone can always create the own polygons including or excluding if they want.

Thanks for contributing.

1. AFAIK this facility is mostly un-staffed so no office here right?
2. An industrial process takes place here so should be landuse=industrial.
3. Add the operator=Sydney Water
4. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=amenity%3Dutility_water isn't used, so I would leave this out. The landuse=industrial + water tanks imply it.

We now have this pub mapped twice

way/518743604
way/535898268

I prefer to map the grounds since someone in the outdoor seating area is still at the pub. So I'd put all the tags relating to the pub on the outside way, and just leave the tags relating to the building on the building itself. That's my preference. Open to what you think.

There are now two post offices here

node/4312386629
way/535847473

There should only be one amenity=post_office since there is only one post office.

I suggest migrate across tags from the node to the way and delete the node.

You could change it to highway=service, service=driveway, access=private rather than deleting, but I'm not fussed.

Perhaps building=retail would fit here since it sells things?

You could just add amenity=atm as a seperate node inside the building, it's more likely to be used by data consumers and you can then add tags specifc to the atm.