highway=secondary is for major roads, this is just a minor service road so I've downgraded the classification.

lcn=yes is an easy way to tag a road as being part of a local bicycle route. That's better than using a description as it's interpreted by cycle maps. lcn=*

Next best thing is to actually add the way to a bicycle route relation.

Great so it sounds like everything is okay and nothing needs removing, thanks for confirming!

Hi it looks like you've used thelist as a background map, which is licensed CC BY. OSM requires a waiver to use CC BY data per https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ and per osm.wiki/Australian_data_catalogue the Tasmanian Government indicated in May 2017 and again in Dec 2018 that they did not wish to provide the waiver. So we're not able to incorporate their data into OSM. Could you please clarify which exact data you've sourced from thelist vs from GPS, bing and survey as we'll need to go through and redact that from OSM.

I always assumed that description for the cycleway=shoulder tag only applied when it wasn't already a marker lanes for bicycles. ie. cycleway=shoulder implied there is no bicycle marketing, and no cycleway, just that there is a shoulder there which conveniently works as a path for bicycles to use.

If we don't use cycleway=lane, then we must also use bicycle=designated on to the motorway to distinguish this signposted for bicycles shoulder from a regular shoulder not signposted for bicycles.

It's been discussed in the past, and at the time I think the consensus was that the legal definition doesn't influence tagging, what's on the ground does whether it meets the legal definition or not. That's my view, that so long as it looks like a cycle lane, is used as a cycle lane, matches the generally accepted definition of a cycle lane, then it's a cycleway=lane.

cycleway=shoulder doesn't provide differentiation between motorway shoulders and cycle lanes on local streets, you can have cycleway=shoulder on local streets and cycleway=lane on motorways, it's the highway tag which provides the differentiation cyclelanes on motorway and local streets.

Hey there, I noticed you changed parts of the M2 from cycleway=lane to cycleway=shoulder. Cycleway=lane is where there is a dedicated and signposted bicycle infrastructure (which there is on parts of the M2). Is there a good reason why that shouldn't be used here?

Just a heads up, these school buildings name should be the name of the building, not the name of the school.

Okay, got it. I also read boundary=maritime which says "maritime=yes to state that this is a maritime border, so it can be rendered correctly/different from land borders"

So I think based on this you're using the tag correctly here. I'll add it to a few aquatic reserves you missed ;)

Could you explain maritime=yes in this context? Is this according to maritime=* "Practically it is used for administrative boundaries that are located outside the coastline independent of their function and admin_level=*."

So any admin_boundary outside the coastline needs this tag?

Could you help clarify what way/580821895 is?

I've changed the geometry of Mollymook Beach Reserve to match the imagery instead of the LPI Base map. changeset/69455936

way/211410472 looks like a duplicate of node/437244348/history. So I kept the original one and deleted the one you added.

Yeah sorry I should have clarified, I'm only talking about the ones over sea here like node/4084216641

I want to delete place=locality, natural=cape is rendered by the default style and already used as the tag for many "Points". natural=point has no wiki page. So I think we should use natural=cape, as it's the accepted tag currently. In the future with the appropriate tagging proposal for natural=point it can be changed back.

Can we not just use natural=cape for all points/headlands? If not can you distinguish what the difference between a point and a cape in OSM would be?

It looks like you've moved node/762068183 into the lagoon, I fixed this for you, please be careful next time not to drag nodes around.

I can't tell which changeset this happened in, but it looks like you edited around https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/580519760 recently which removed the entrance to the SCA. Was that intentional?

Not to worry, I've deleted this one in place of way/353119649

Hey mate you've placed node/441519460 in the middle of the ocean, was that an error?