Hey Warin, in this changeset you increased the size of way/23565958 to extend to the range danger area. Since the range danger area is already mapped at way/434705783, I think the leisure=pitch way should only cover the original smaller area covering the shooting range only. Do you think that's okay?

Oh sorry I didn't realise, that's great!

@Luen Warneke ps you can also upload your GPS traces to osm.org/traces which go into OSM's gps traces layer which help to provide evidence and justification of trace locations as mapped in OSM but also aid in mapping.

If you want you can also check it out at https://dev.beyondtracks.com/carto/debug/#15.39/-43.236187/147.795203 and switch to "Satellite" and you can see this also aligns with the Tasmanian Government aerial imagery, though I'd still trust the GPS traces more.

@Warin61 this track is correct as confirmed by the OSM GPS traces layer (one of those traces should be my GPS trace), if you turn that on you'll see the track is aligned well. Don't trust the imagery here.

I think it's generally accepted within OSM that sourcing a few facts from a website is okay, eg. contact phone number of a business from their website. I asked this at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2018-November/081637.html so I think that's okay, what's potentially not okay is when whole collections of data are mass copied. Of course it can be hard to determine where the cut off is, so of course we prefer ground surveyed data but I believe in this case a single depth and capacity numbers taken for this dam as published there is okay.

Hi Hb-, there has been concern raised at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2020-February/013619.html that this data isn't able to be determined reliably by Bing and ESRI imagery and concerns that some of this information may have come from non-free sources. Are you able to confirm here what sources of information this changeset used? Did you refer to https://www.ddmrb.org.au/ for the location of the fence?

Many thanks,
Andrew Harvey
Data Working Group

https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/node/4313720776 are you sure it's not "Winston Hills Post Office"? We should keep Winston Hills in there if it's still known as that, either in the name or branch tag.

Did you survey this? Ibis budget was tagged as a motel before, which you changed to a hotel, when I drove past this before it did seem more like a motel, I think it should only be changed if you've surveyed and are sure.

When adding brand tags, it's still a good idea to leave the branch in place as part of the name, or at the very least include it in branch=*.

this was still closed a few days after the light rail opened, so agreed we should check via survey before opening.

I see you added the fee value here, per fee=* I'd recommend using fee=yes (to say that a fee usually applies; the default) combined with fee:conditional=no @ (Tu-Fr 11:00-20:00; Sa-Su 10:00-20:00) to say that during these hours a fee doesn't apply. This is more in line with how conditional restrictions generally work osm.wiki/Conditional_restrictions

hi a tip for way/771066862/history name should only be a proper name see osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_use_name_tag_to_describe_things

Hi there, just a tip about
way/771086617/history
waterway=canal is for man made features per waterway=canal for natural water courses see waterway=river or waterway=stream waterway=stream

Hi welcome to OSM. Just a tip, this kind of forest track is usually tagged as highway=track highway=track

It looks like this road no longer exists on the ground per changeset/80342272 where it was removed.

it's still fine to delete it completely if you prefer.

To try and prevent it being re-added you could leave the way in place but delete all the tags and leave a note explaining that it's not there anymore, despite being visible on imagery.

Of course it'

> The copyright of this FB video restricts the redistribution of the video itself. It does NOT prohibit the use of information from within the video. The gathered information, here coordinates, can freely used by anyone.

This is no different that if someone publishes a list of coordinates as data. OpenStreetMap takes a clear cut view and assumes if someone creates that and it's copyrighted then we should respect that and not test the limits of copyright law.

This is also backed up where the OpenStreetMap Licensing Working Group has indicated you need a compatible license or imagery tracing waiver to trace aerial imagery.

It does look like a formed track as far as I can tell from the video, maybe not maintained well, but still good enough for the truck to use so I wouldn't say abandoned. I still think it should be mapped, just not copied from a copyrighted source where we don't have permission.

I would use highway=track as you say it's wide enough for a vehicle so not a path.