Hi, Welcome to OSM and thanks for contributing.

Are these new streets in construction or are they open to the public?

Nivison, Pampa, Monmouth aren't connected up to Terry Road based on this change, in reality do they connect?

Do you know if there's a library here anymore? If not you can delete this object all together.

If you had to do some bush bashing, would trail_visibility=bad or horrible be more appropriate? trail%20visibility=*?uselang=en-AU

Thanks for fixing this @jaecord. I would like to know more about the process. Was your AI detecting this as paved, because that's some pretty bad AI. Did this go through a human check?

@magrej it's quite clear from https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/58383914/ that the surface tag was added in this changeset, so not by you.

I'd go do a survey and Mapillary capture, but it's a $15 ferry ride... though at low tide it's own a 200m swim, so unless someone beats me too it, when the water warms up in a few months I'll survey it.

I posted a comment at changeset/58383914 as well, but I can't tell from the imagery if this is paved or unpaved, how did you determine it's paved?

I'm not sure that's paved, it can be hard/impossible to tell from the imagery if it's compacted unpaved or gravel or paved. If you're unsure it's probably best to leave it untagged so that it can be picked up by things like StreetComplete to be checked.

As a human I can't tell from the LPI NSW Imagery that https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/393210208 is paved. Can you tell?

In fact it looks unpaved, but we could leave it untagged until it can be surveyed.

You can use the branch tag branch=*

branch=Beecroft
brand=Woolworths
name=Woolworths Beecroft

It's a bit confusing but based on the wiki highway=footway highway=path

highway=footway is more appropriate here as it's a well defined footpath mainly for pedestrians. highway=path is better for multi use paths which aren't defined for any mode.

How come these buildings were removed? From the imagery they look like they exist so I've added them back in.

I've added the service:bicycle tags shop=bicycle#Additional_keys based on your description that this place offers bicycle repair but doesn't sell retail bikes.

It's good practice to have one OSM element for one feature osm.wiki/Good_practice#One_feature.2C_one_OSM_element In this case we should only have one railway=station tag for Regents Park, now it looks like there are multiple train stations there...

See also building=train_station

confirmed on Mapillary https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-33.815944444444426&lng=151.0909361111111&z=17&pKey=JPmR9u6CwAEIXC-Vf1Xjug&focus=photo&x=0.3961444658513585&y=0.48650675358780354&zoom=2.7753252126198587

Yes I think it would be helpful to specify that this is Vicmap Transport specifically.

Yes I think it would be helpful to specify that this is Vicmap Transport specifically.

Just because it's an uncommon value doesn't mean it should be removed, instead it's best to check with the mapper that added it originally with a changeset comment to see what their intention was, perhaps there is another more appropriate tag (eg. service=alley), instead of just deleting it. Cheers.

Glad to see that City of Melbourne imagery being used. For the toilets to the west, if that whole building is toilets you can drop the node and just add all the tags on the way.

Could you please specify which dataset from services.land.vic.gov.au you're using?

Could you please specify which services.land.vic.gov.au dataset you're using?

For https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/286898692 what's the reason for removing service=laneway?

Could you reference which dataset is being used for the names? There are many different datasets on services.land.vic.gov.au, eg. Vicmap Addresses or Vicmap Transport