Normally I would agree, but in this case they are all the one feature on the ground.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/136319147@N08/35558842005

The survey mark is at the peak which is part of the picnic table and roof... all one feature on the ground so all one object in OSM.

This is noted in my note "This point is both the peak of the mountain, the physical survey point on a roof over picnic tables, hence all tags are valid in combination at this point."

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-33.96372222222223&lng=151.15543611111116&z=17&pKey=lhRimvFZxJNXRBF6l5snMw&focus=photo&x=0.449782564727345&y=0.5131537845591562&zoom=1.2966360856269112

* I mean highway=footway, bicycle=designated

in response to ^, this path on the ground is highway=footway as it's primarily for pedestrians, however signage indicates that bicycles are designated, hence why I've used highway=footway + footway=cycleway.

> Dear aharvey,
>
> While I was doing fixing logical Osmose issues, I found an error “suspicious tag combination – highway=footway together with bicycle=designated” (coordinate: -33.9640122, 151.1553117, wayID: 516799329).
>
> As I understood based on wiki OSM (highway=footway), where a pathway is designated for pedestrians but is also allowed for bicycles you can use highway=footway and bicycle=yes, or cycleway=* if there is a cycle path on the same way. Highway=footway tag only goes in combination with foot=designated but not specially designated route for bicycle.
>
> One of solutions can be to change the bicycle tag from designated to values yes, if bicycle traffic is allowed, or to remove bicycle tag and add cycleway=* tag.
>
> Maybe, better solution can be to remove bicycle=designated tag, change highway=footway to highway=cycleway and to add segregated=no tag if they share one lane.
>
> If you a have different understanding of this tag combination tag than me, then please explain so we can find the best solution.
>
> Best regards,
> AndjelaS

Please keep in mind that you shouldn't use maps.six.nsw.gov.au as a source, we only have permission to use the Web Services http://spatialservices.finance.nsw.gov.au/mapping_and_imagery/lpi_web_services. Although most of the time it would be the same data, it's not good practice to rely on that.

could you please specify a unit for the parking maxstay? way/479478321

I'd also be okay with a revert of this import, due to the quality issues uncovered until they can be resolved.

I've fixed this.

Are you really sure there is a culvert where Heathcote Brook intersects the Karloo Track?

I've made some changes, I've brought back way/31804884/history it's better to retain existing ways where possible, as it makes it easier to see the history of the object.

Also see osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only the name tag should just be the name, ie. "Uloola Falls Trail" not "Uloola Falls Trail - Heathcote To Waterfall", I've reverted this back for you, but keep in mind for next time.

Re https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/42791553 motor_vehicle=yes means the public can drive here, which is not the case, I've changed this to motor_vehicle=private which is the default for highway=track, so not essential to tag, but not wrong either.

Thank you!

Hey I just walked here today and there's no bridge at way/614134022

What's this "Splash Zone" node/361500298 ? Where does did this name come from?

not sure how you determined that way/33776118 is paved, but it's not based on my recent survey, so I've changed it back to unpaved.

Hey Gareth, When I walked this 2 years ago there was a path along side the creek, but pretty overgrown so I made sure it was mapped as highway=path + trail_visibility=horrible (so people know only walk here if you're comfortable navigating in the bush where the path is easily lost with no guideposts or other track markers).

Has the path overgrown so much now that there's no longer a path at all?

What do you mean by a "formal" track?

It's more to indicate the lifecycle of the school, that there are building a new school (technically a campus of an existing school, but it's still school area "under construction" https://www.schoolinfrastructure.nsw.gov.au/projects/c/cammeraygal-high-school-senior-campus.html

Once it's open then we can just remove the lifecycle prefix.

The building is undergoing renovation, which I still think is construction, so you could tag the building that way in addition to this school area if you like.

Are these ways necessary to run the whole length of the platform?

Yep, it's simply because no one has mapped these stations down to that level so far, so glad that you're helping out with this so we can improve the level of detail.

Ideally the routing engines would just route across the platform area, but until then footways on the platform, ideally connecting to the edge of the platform like way/444889956 is the best solution in my opinion.

Many places though it's impossible to map remotely, and will need a visit to the station to conform the layout so they can be mapped more accurately taking the pedestrian network down to each platform.

Yes and I see you just added a footway to the west side of the platform in https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/65657528/ which fixes the issue of it going all the way around the platform. I think that's the best solution, with a balance between something workable for routing engines and representing the real world. Is there a problem using this approach for other stations where steps or a ramp lead onto the platform?

This looks fine to me osm.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=-33.82179%2C151.19399%3B-33.82206%2C151.19529 by snapping the footway to the edge of the platform area, a routing engine which can't route across areas should just follow the platform outline.

The better solution is change your start point to be where the footway meets the platform.