This was reverted in changeset/103302927.

I agree with the revert in that this route is a lower ranking compared to Pacific Highway. One being the main route which connects major cities in Australia, the other being a smaller connecting road to join major centres within a city.

Yeah I suspected that, actually while I don't think overlapping buildings like this is the right way to do this, I'm not sure if there is consensus around how it should be done, so I'll leave it as you've done.

Thanks for confirming, when you say north of town hall, is that north of Market Street?

I don't think this is how it should be done, because this tagging of a building=train_station area inside of a building=roof area implies you have a building inside and then a another completely different roof structure over the building. Usually it would only happen if there is a gap between the roof of the train station building and the other roof on top.

So I think how it was before was more correct. What do you think?

I don'

I believe unless there is a no bicycles sign then legally cyclists can use it so it shouldn't be bicycle=no, though if there is a bicycle lane then cyclists need to use it unless unsafe. Though if it's a bicycle lane, then we need bicycle=yes to indicate that the lane can be used. An off road path or shared path isn't mandatory to use.
So based on that it seems unlikely to be strictly bicycle=no.
If they build a new shared path on the western side, and this is mapped in OSM then routers will pick whether to use the shared path or road based on the profile preference (brouter is good at this, you can pick you want a fast bike route or a safer route).
Cycling safety tag comes up every now and then, but usually it boils down to being subjective, so usually it's better to tag objective things about the road which would affect bike safety (lanes, max speed, width, shoulder, parking lanes) because routers can use those to favour safer roads.

It's rare that bicycle access is not permitted unless it's a motorway or bus only lane, is there a no bicycles sign?

hi, welcome to OSM. Thanks for your edit.

I tweaked the tags here to be more consistent with how this is typically mapped and tagged.

Did you survey https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/288436548 ? From all the imagery it is still appearing.

FYI I think way/948639252 usually would be mapped tertiary_link, open for discussion if these should be or not, but it's what's commonly done.

I removed the ford=yes because you can't know if it's a ford or there is a bridge here from imagery, best to leave untagged so it can be set once surveyed.

Hi, could I also check why foot=yes was removed? Do you know if foot access is permitted here? Best to have it explicitly tagged yes or no.

Hi just checking why access tags were removed? For highway=track, it's a good idea to explicitly tag motor_vehicle, bicycle and foot access.

Oh I see, thanks. so your edit was correct. I re-deleted this one now. Because your changeset comment mentioned crossing water bodies I didn't realise you'd removed this because it was duplicate, sorry.

I've reverted changeset/105388046 which should have restored these now.

reverted in changeset/105384291 ways are on different levels so shouldn't share a common node

I don't see the issue with layer=0 here, it's making it clear someone with knowledge knew this as ground level, or at least level 0 relative to other layer tags. Without it you don't know where you've checked and where you haven't.

reverted in changeset/105384967

how do you know this is really a building passage? It's too hard to tell from the imagery so I'll revert. Please don't just blindly "fix" iD warnings, mostly they need a survey to check what the issue is, is it the road not tagged correctly, the road in the wrong location, the building in the wrong location?

reverted in changeset/105384852 it's impossible to tell from Maxar if this is a bridge or not