Maybe you didn't realise you did, but you have https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/77959014/.

You can't use Google as a source as you don't own that data, but besides how can you tell from satellite imagery if a road is private or not?

I'll revert your changeset.

ok thanks. I've added the old name back into the "old_name" key so people searching for the old name can still find it.

I'm surprised this is foot=no, what's on the ground that indicates foot=no?

Thanks. I've added a few extra placement tags here so if you turn on the "Lane and road attributes" Map paint style in JOSM the lane visualisations line up with what's on the imagery.

No worries, sorry I thought you added it but it was actually because you'd split the way it showed up part as completely new, but it's just an artefact as being split. No worries I've fixed this now and added the segregated=no tag to show the sections which are shared foot/bicycle.

generally I'll try to align the way with where the center line of the road is and then use the placement tag to be explicit with where this is in relation to the lane tags. Is there a particular reason here for shifting these ways away from the painted centerline of the road?

PS. cycleway=track is used when you want to add a tag to an existing road saying there is a separated cycle facility here. When you've mapped it out already as a separate way then highway=cycleway is enough. See cycleway=track which also confirms this.

It's further up the road where the cycleway has been taken up by construction works, but they close this segment since it's the last exit. So this segment really does have a cycle lane on the ground that you're not allowed to cycle in.

I agree, it's best to always map motorways with an explicit bicycle=yes/no. I always try to add this in when I can.

cycleway=lane doesn't say you can cycle here, it's simply saying there is a cycle lane infrastructure here, which is the case, but then it's overridden by a sign which says no bicycles allowed, ie. bicycle=no. It can happen as the cycle lane was built but then closed for an extended period due to construction works happening further down the motorway.

A bunch of these turn restrictions are not needed, so I've removed them.

I've reverted this until someone does a ground survey to re-confirm as based on all available information this is still closed to bicycles while the construction works are underway.

This looks good, thanks. The bicycle=no for the onramp way is valid per https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/i8PoC8URdMfrriKCUVSciw

See https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/wc31bMCC_qNGKHBDVlrb4g this is from April 2019 but unless you have more recent on the ground information, I don't see any reason to change this back to being open to bikes.

Sorry I realised your change is outside the section they say is closed, but still I think it's better to have better on the ground info.

Unless you've done a survey to confirm I don't think we should make this change see https://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/newsroom/2019/01/31/no-news-from-northconnex-on-m2-detour/ where it says "The cycleway is closed between Pennant Hills Road and Windsor Road" So cycleway=lane is there because on the ground there is physically a cyclelane, but it's been temporarily closed for three years hence why it's bicycle=no. So I think we should revert, are you okay to do that?

The public_transport=stop_area relation already includes the public_transport=station area way/679354513.

I can't find the diagram on the wiki anymore, but there used to be one that shows the difference between public_transport=station (the station from the passenger perspective) and railway=station (the station from the rail infrastructure/signalling perspective).

According to osm.wiki/Tag%3Apublic_transport%3Dstop_area only the public_transport=station way should be a member, not the railway=station way.

Is than an incorrect assumption?

Cheers, looks good to me.

What's the intent here? The wood is on the ground level so shouldn't have a layer tag. Things like bridges need the layer tag to know what's above each other.

Right but still I think to tag an address on the feature, the school should somehow advertise that address. If you want to add a separate address node I think that's fine, but to attach it to the school it should have a stronger connection in my opinion. Especially when there is contradictory information here that places the address on Brighton Boulevard, Bondi Beach.

Just bear in mind that the name alone doesn't determine the classification. You could have something named river which is still tagged as a stream in OSM due to it being smaller with less flow than you'd expect from a river.