Thanks. Agreed with @SK53, I've used disused for now, once the chains have been removed can be updated to demolished or removed.

Okay I've marked this as a common pending a more information and updated the etymology tags in changeset/76279583

>robe data isn't enough to justify this, I checked on the ground and there is no signage or physical barrier indicating this restriction.

In this changeset it looks like you changed Garigal Road from a single way to two parallel ways (dual carriage), however lacking a physical barrier for most of the road it's better mapped as a single way, I've changed it back.

Hi, It looks like the wikipedia/wikidata links are for the person this is named after not the actual square. In that case see name:etymology=* for the correct tags to use.

Also because you're lacking a physical tag, can you say anything more about what this is? Is it a pedestrian area, a showground, a theatre or just an open grass space?

Ha I've seen tagging for the renderer, tagging for the router, but never tagging for the editor UI in this way before. I think it's better addressed by the editor UI being smart and generating a name like this based on the relation type.

I mean it's not harmful how you have it, since the name tag shouldn't really mean anything in this context.

Thanks, I updated one of these restrictions to simply except=bus instead of except=psv as per the sign https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/9mbQx7OPz81_3dFNfvv2fQ this only excepts busses not other psv vehicles like taxis. Is that right?

Oh yeah please feel welcome to keep up with your contributions.

In this case, even though bicycles are allowed here, it's still a footpath on the ground from a pedestrian perspective. We have this tag footway=sidewalk which says this footway is a sidewalk since it runs alongside the road, it's useful for some downstream data users.

So just because bicycles can also ride here, doesn't change the fact that it's a "sidewalk" footway. I see now you've added that footway=sidewalk tag back in thanks.

However at https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/530746983 you've added cycleway=sidepath, was that something you found documented somewhere? footway=sidewalk should be enough.

Yes but for a pedstrian it's also still a footpath, in OSM footway=sidewalk footway=sidewalk=* is used to map footways which are the sidewalk.

Do you know why way/246596679/history was deleted? It's best practice to try and retain history where possible? So generally it's always best to reuse existing ways rather than deleting them as we loose the history of the object when it's deleted.

osm.wiki/Relation:destination_sign doesn't indicate what a name tag on the destination_sign relation means, but the name you've used here seems more like a description than a proper name. Are you sure they need a name at all?

https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/530746983 is still a pedestrian "sidewalk" so can you re-add that tag that you deleted back in?

What were you trying to change here? The tunnel was already mapped and it seemed your change moved the surface tags to the wrong place, so I've reverted this.

https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/76176736

+1 from me. You could also use opening_date=*

Ok I've added cycleway=crossing back into https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/724653636

Okay I've changed this back and made a few more updates from the latest Mapillary images.

Oh yeah the crossings you added were good, thanks for that, it was more the turn restrictions which I didn't understand the intent behind.

I've fixed these in changeset/76133836. there were some conflicts when I made the upload, looks like you already started deleting some.

Would be good to understand what you were trying to do here?

I've fixed a bunch of these in changeset/76133836

also not sure what relation/10207313 is