hi, thanks for the edit. The old BP tags were on the grounds not on the building, so I've transferred the ones you added over to the grounds to replace the BP ones and restored the building=retail tag on the building way.

Yeah I'm with ortho_is_hot, it's standard to have a node with role=label which is important to:

1. de-dup the point and relation (so users know they are for the same feature), while still giving data consumers the flexibiltiy to choose points or areas based on their needs.
2. Provide a suggestion for label placement which is near "center" of the suburb, which might not be the same as the centroid or other label placement algorithms.

I think we should roll this back, but still keen to hear your motivation and reasoning for this change.

For way/849190283 if it's in someones backyard, best to add access=private, so when the public is looking for places of shelter they don't get routed to someones yard.

I think it's unlikely that at these points this far upstream that it would have enough flow to be classed as a river. Generally the name is irrelevant to the tags just because it's named Kedumba River doesn't mean it must be waterway=river. If it's got less flow and not that wide then waterway=stream is better.

Looks like iD will "upgrade" the building=commercial into building=yes https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/23693353. Probably should be building=retail, but unless you've looked at the building tag you should inspect the tag diff that the "upgrade" would do and if it breaks the building tag it needs to be manually fixed.

Hi, in this changeset you added duplicate streets on top of the ones which were already there so I've reverted this change.

Yeah and I agree with mos6510 that the changeset comment is just saying the imported data is rubbish, not the person doing the import or process of importing, so don't see this as publicly degrading the contribution (which is the act of importing/tracing existing datasets).

I do think we place too much trust in this "imported" government data. OSM has always been from the start first and foremost from field surveys, supplemented by imagery. So while generally I'd say we shouldn't just blindly track LPI data to provide a base data where no existed prior, if it's already been done, then I think let's try and focus our efforts on moving forward. So be bold in fixing issues, especially if it's originally from data without a survey.

From the imagery you used I can't see way/863483510 as a road, and the DCS/LPI imagery also shows no road here, only a few seats, so unless you have local knowledge or a better source I'll remove this road.

hi, welcome to OSM. It looks like you've realigned a few roads based on the Maxar Premium imagery layer. You'll notice if you swap the imagery layers there aren't all aligned with each other, so generally we'll use GPS traces of the roads as guide of where the road actually is. The more GPS traces we have then the more reliable we can align things. You can turn on the GPS traces in the iD editor under Background > Overlays. In this area here the GPS traces indicate that the LPI/DCS Imagery is pretty well aligned so best to have everything aligned to that.

hi in your changeset here https://osmcha.org/changesets/91076437/ you've dragged a node from another road, I've fixed that now, but something to watch out for next time.

hi, The Court road was actually broken from a changeset before yours version 2 at https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/node/701823806 so to properly fix this road and keep the original history I've reverted your change and then the problematic one. Where there is an issue like this best to not try and fix it in the same changeset as other changes like adding buildings so that it can more easily be fixed. Because I reverted your whole changeset, I'll now reinstate the buildings you added here.

I'd usually think of these as water=reservoir with reservoir_type=water_storage even though they might be known as "ponds". I'd usually keep pond for the kind found in council parks etc that are mostly landscaped features, not there for storing water for subsequent agricultural use.

Yeah local knowledge and your GPS data is best, there is some imagery here from Maxar and ESRI which shows some construction detail (available in most editors) which can be used too, but of course local knowledge is going to be more up to date.

Hi I've reverted these changes because you've stated you used a copyrighted source landgate which as far as I know has licensing terms incompatible with OSM. So please don't use data we don't have permission to use. If you have local knowledge of this area please do contribute from your ground surveys.

Ultimately we can only map so far as the signage on the ground indicates. "discouraging" access is quite vague, does that mean legally you're allowed to ride but the park authority prefers if you don't?

If backyard swimming pools are visible from the imagery I believe it's okay to map them, osm.wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information does touch on this and comes to the view that they are around the limit of what's acceptable to map. I think they are useful for people building out property data, people doing research, councils to check any legally required fences are there so while you don't have to map them, it's okay to and once these have been mapped they generally shouldn't be removed unless they are no longer there.

hi I saw you added way/702577536/ as a tunnel, however at https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-33.73204444444445&lng=151.00581944444446&z=17&focus=photo&pKey=FW1WjK0_GOz5K2Nwy09Zkg&x=0.19471178723412683&y=0.5153911999735892&zoom=1.5412844036697249 it looks like it's ground level, it doesn't go into a tunnel, it's just that a building was built on top. In this case I don't think it should be mapped as a tunnel.

Since I didn't hear back from you and after I did a search and couldn't find any track here, and given you added it from online refernences only without a ground survey I've removed this track. Normally I'd suggest in these cases where you can't confirm to add a note instead, but given I can't find it on the ground, I don't see the point in opening a note now. If you do find a track here, please collect a GPS trace and upload it to OSM.

this area was already mapped as wood so I deleted way/859429890/history