Hi for Bradley Street the section at way/740090186, I noticed you've used two ways for the road one in each direction. As a rule of thumb that's only done where there is a physical separation (dual carriage), if there is just a painted line on the road we use a single way. From the imagery there is no physical barrier here. What's it look like one the ground?

Hi this is mostly okay but I've found a few issues, could you please take a look and let me know if you either disagree or have fixed them?

1. you've created a tunnel way/765150553/history yet there is obviously no tunnel there https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=sNzI76_v9TFUQIiF7hPBMA&focus=photo

2. you've added a crossing node/7146434059/ but there exists no crossing https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=JBYRRHQkIXXAdLPjnoZ3UQ&focus=photo a driveway passing the footpath shouldn't be a crossing which is defined as a place to cross the road, it shouldn't apply to a driveway.

3. way/765150551/history in the imagery you can see there is a foot bridge over the drain,, it's not a culvert tunnel.

4. way/765150522/history is possibly a bridge not a culvert, if you're unsure it's better to leave the issue there until someone who knows for sure can fix it.

5. way/683838192/history if this is a 7-Eleven shop it's unlikely to be building=residential. building=retail is probably better.

Since boundary=administrative#10_admin_level_values_for_specific_countries mentions admin_level=8 for communes and since it's the admin_center for relation/389658 which is also admin_level=8 I'll set that.

@balcoath you can revert the revert changeset. Ideally this would be done in the right order so they can smoothly applied assuming no other changes have been made. Now that we have the imagery tracing waiver from ECan I see no reason why data derived from the imagery can't be used now.

See also https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-nz/2020/000187.html the ECan imagery is ingested by LINZ so which we do have the layer in OSM for, but ECan can be more recent as it takes time for LINZ to update their mosaic.

After approaching Environment Canterbury they have agreed to the OSM tracining waiver https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ to allow OSM to trace from their aerial imagery.

Their permission form at osm.wiki/File:EnvironmentCanterbury_AerialimagerywaiversfortracingforOpenStreetMap.pdf

This only covers the Imagery layer https://gisbasemap.ecan.govt.nz/arcgis/rest/services/Imagery/MapServer and https://gisbasemap.ecan.govt.nz/arcgis/rest/services/Imagery/Imagery_basemap_WGS84_4/MapServer

Only if the tree is notable and has its own Wikipedia or wikidata entry.

Just to close this out, I've fixed this in changeset/79746903

That grass runway you added, I can't see anything on the latest Maxar imagery from October 2019, do you think we should still keep this runway?

Cool I see you added the species tag now, that's good. Even with the wikidata tag I think it's helpful to add the species tag, but with both wikidata and species it's even better.

The point I was making though is it should be `species:wikidata` not `wikidata`. For example this tree has its own wikipedia page and wikidata value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81rbol_del_Tule and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q252182, but in your case there is no wikidata for this exact tree, only its species so it should be species:wikidata=Q...

Please could you let me know when you've fixed this or if you need a hand?

Hi, thanks for mapping tree species. Please see species=* + the genus and taxon tags. Also for tagging with wikidata you'll need to use species:wikidata unless the tree is notable and has it's own wikidata item.

I've sent a waiver request to ECAN to ask for imagery tracing permission, but let's not expect that. balcoath it looks like you've reverted your affected changesets, did you manage to do them all without issues? Let me know if you still need a hand.
Moving forward, let's hope ECAN are responsive and provide us permission, if they do we can start using it as a source.

Hi Seb, I noticed you just added the name Stand A to this node node/1263263479 which has ref C. Looks like they start at A at the top and work their way down so should that be Stand C?

looks like changeset/79253913 may have reverted some of your changes but I don't have enough local knowledge to know. You can see a diff at https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/79253913/

I think it's somewhere in between motorway and trunk, it's mostly only access by ramps (with some exceptions for very minor service roads only) but no roundabouts or traffic lights, it has the higher 100km/hr speed limit indicative of a motorway, but it's not officially designated as a motorway (you'd see start motorway signs if it were). So I'm okay with it being trunk even though I think motorway is also fine.

The main things I was trying to help you with were 1. where you removed oneway=yes from entry/exit ramps. 2. where you removed the _link classification from entry/exit ramps.

> Anyway, just reset whatever you want, I won't touch things anymore.

If you see things which are wrong or missing, please do fix them.

hi with node/1832386691 it looks like you've just added it back as a member of the Bankstown Line relation. However changeset/79213300 just removed it one day ago since the line no longer uses that platform. Are you sure you're correct, if your unsure could you revert this?

See https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/355252140 where you removed the oneway=yes, but I've fixed this now. By the way "Princes" is correct not "Princess".

Sorry but if you set avoid motorways then you can't really complain when it avoids this motorway! Not all motorways are toll roads, if you want to avoid toll roads set avoid tolls not avoid motorways.

This section has no roundabouts, so I and although it's not named motorway I think it fits OSM's motorway description.

I fixed the _link classifcations.

I fixed the oneways, could you fix the _link classifications?

I noticed you've also remove a few oneway=yes from exits/entrances and remove _link classification which is incorrect. I'm fixing this for you. Could you explain what you were trying to change in your changeset?