Tagging looks good, but don't think the layer tags are needed, layer=* is for distinguishing the physical vertical relationship between features, so doesn't make sense to apply it to the social facility object, unless it was a building under or over another building, or something like that.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/96566166

Great thanks for checking it and fixing.

I think it's a good idea to map them in OSM, but agree we don't have a good tag for public land reserve. But I don't agree with blanket tagging these leisure=park, as a kid rocking up with his soccer ball or a family with their picnic rug expecting a local park might be dissapointed.

hi you've significantly changed the Badgerys Creek - Luddenham suburb boundaries, previously running through the airport which you changed to follow The Northern Road. What's your source for this change because the DCS Suburb dataset still has the boundaries as they were. Unless you have any other reason or evidence to suggest it should follow The Northern Road, I'm inclined to leave it as it was before to match the DCS data.

We haven't received permission to use NSW Planning data. Although it's CC BY licensed per https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ we still need a waiver. There is a list of organisations we have a waiver for at osm.wiki/Australian_data_catalogue but as far as I'm aware no one has asked for one from Planning yet. So we shouldn't be using any copyrighted data from Planning until we have that waiver in place.

Most of these I couldn't consider leisure=park based on leisure=park. If they are council reserves, I'm not sure the best tag to use, in the past I've used some combination of natural=wood, boundary=protected_area, leisure=nature_reserve, or even just untagged with a note.

I checked the boundaries and they seem okay, @ZeLonewolf can you point out specifically where it's broken?

Island name restored in changeset/96228931

Also previously you had both the place name of Dangar Island for place=island and the administrative suburb boundary boundary=administrative also named Dangar Island. So I'll restore this but you've made some other changes mixed in here which are good like the bay name, amenities around the ferry terminal and the landcover, so I'll try to fix this by hand without reverting anything....

Okay I just deleted it and left a note instead for a ground survey since it was originally added from the LPI basemap and not from survey.

True but there is only one Museum station and it was already mapped and tagged at node/6571334824 so I'll remove the train station tags from this node, until someone can confirm if there is a museum here or not... If no museum then can just delete this node.

hi, not sure if it was mentioned in a private message or not but, ways are placed based on the physical seperation not where lane markings go. Turn lanes can be mapped via turn lane tags. This change was reverting in changeset/95940898 based on that justification.

found it https://maproulette.org/challenge/15439 not sure why it didn't come up in searches

PS. Could you point me to this map roulette challenge, I couldn't find it.

That name was already added as alt_name. I've seen schools with multiple signs some say Primary some say Public School so there is no right answer. If you want to swap this based on a survey that's fine, but best to keep the other name as alt_name and not have both name and alt_name the same.

ps. could you please point to which MapRoulette challenge this is? I couldn't find it.

The email, phone and fax were already added using the contact prefix, but if you feel the need to duplicate this information with the non-prefixed tags then I guess that's okay. Just a shame to see so much wasted effort because the community can't agree on which tag to use for a phone number....

hi for way/319518760/history you can just delete the construction tags and add the landuse, eg landuse=residential tag

hi the lifeguard tower was already mapped here with way/886904509. It's fine to upgrade this to a way, but best practice is to try to reuse the existing node as part of the way (though it's okay if you don't). However the new tag you've used is only emergency=lifeguard which is much less specific than the previous emergency=lifeguard_tower I'd mapped which you deleted. I'll update this to reinstate the lifeguard_tower tag.

Hi I've reverted this change because it broke admin boundaries, dragged nodes, made roads dual carriageway where a single way is the accepted way to map. I couldn't see any positive changes here. If if could please reply what you were trying to map here?