Hi Martin,
See osm.wiki/Relation:connectivity a proposal to describe how lanes connect with each other.

Agree with the other comments made here about OSM process etc.

"Anyway, no one will ever document this area because it's private property and not accessible to the public." That's not true at all, I can fly my plane overhead and document this from the air.

Thanks a ton for fixing this. I broke it accidentally when deleting a way I thought was not used by anything, but turns out it was used outside my viewport for this park.

Hi I've updated the tags to say access=yes+motor_vehicle=private, if you're able to elaborate on what you're trying to tag please post back.

Hey there, thanks for the fixes here for the sidings etc, however I've reverted the change which added a node for the railway station. This station was already mapped as an area, feel free to jump on the talk-au mailing list to discuss further if you like.

Hi could you explain what information you're trying to add here, since access=emergency is not a valid tag per access=*. I suspect you're intending emergency=designated which means this track is specifically designated for emergency use, which as a fire trail it kind of is.

There's two other relations which reference this as well relation/10214162 and relation/9736832.

I wonder what we should use for the network tag?

could you fix your source:name tag please? This is in NSW not VIC.

What was the reasoning for removing service=emergency_access here? As far as I can tell this is a well documented and use tag service=emergency_access and it's fair to assume that this track of primarily for fire fighting purposes.

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