I've fixed this now, since it does look like you'd dragged it accidentally.

ALso I notice you're using Nearmap as your imagery, could you please confirm that you're licensed to derive data and have no restrictions on that derived data? Lastly it looks like this is part of a teachosm project, was this change done as part of a mapping event?

Hi, trees are better represented as nodes, natural=wood is for larger areas covered by trees not individual trees.

hi you've also moved the toilets https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/78856934

Was that accidental, if so could you fix it please?

duration and interval tags here are very approximate

aren't locked, in which case it just means you need to out of the car to open it, but can still pass though.

That's a different kind of gate, you've used waterway=lock_gate

You could instead use:
barrier=gate
then say which modes of transport can and can't use it so typically
foot=yes
bicycle=yes
motor_vehicle=no (or motor_vehicle=private)

It's not well document but you could also use locked=yes as some gates aren'

comment should read L2, L3 and L1 not T.

Okay sorry. I think this change is good, unlike a cycle lane which has a painted bicycle or other signage, a shoulder doesn't indicate bicycles, so I think in this case if bicycle access is not permitted then cycleway=shoulder doesn't make sense.

Yes the infrastructure is still existing on the ground, but an access restriction is in place (which has spanned > 1 year). cycleway=lane + bicycle=no is the best way to model the real world situation.

We discussed this at changeset/77842957 technically the cycle lane is still there, but bicycles aren't allowed to use it so bicycle=no.

could you elaborate on the problem with cycleway=shoulder? I know it's weakly defined but does have some documentation at cycleway=*

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.