I've re-tagged these using the standard access=yes tag.

way/227348319/history you've tagged privacy=public but it was originally mapped as access=private. Is that road open to the public or restricted?

I reverted this as these are still mostly service roads and not tertiary and the one segment added already existed as a track so became a duplicate. Please feel free to discuss further here.

Hi privacy=* is not a standard tag, the access=* tag looks like a better fit. access=yes can be used to indicate public access is permitted, though usually not added as assumed by default, it's still fine to add it to be explict.

As for removing the uluru climb, I think it's a good idea to leave it in but potentially change from disused to removed or was osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix if chains have been removed now. This helps prevent it being re-added and can be useful for research purposes.

From what I can tell most of these roads had correct classifications already (especially the service, residential ones). Tertiary when not within a city is usually for roads which link smaller towns and villages.

Hi Tess, I invite you to join the discussion at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-November/015349.html about using macrons in name:en.

Or if you don't want to join the mailing list if you had any comments on the discussion you wanted to voice here instead?

hi your change here removed natural=bare_rock (natural=bare%20rock) from Kata Tjuṯa (https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/relation/7474225). I've re-instated it.

hi HighRouleur, on the talk-au thread about this, there is discussion going on so I invite you to join in. One point of discussion was some people can legally ride on the footpath (children) and marking bicycle=no as a default legal restriction makes it impossible to capture places where no body can cycle including children. There are more intricacies here, so given this is an active point of discussion and disagreements on how it should be tagged, it would be great if you could join these discussions so we can agree on how the tagging should be done for Melbourne footpaths before doing mass-tagging.

There were a bunch of pot plants and other material put there so it was not obvious there was a path here, probably the nearby resident placed these here to disguise the legally accessible path. If you didn't know there was a path (and didn't see the sign) you'd think you were walking into someones backyard.

I deleted node/8878498384 because the vacinnation centre is already tagged on the building way.

For way/971051966/history, the wiki documents service=alley as mainly rear access service=alley, whereas this is more a shared driveway which I've been taging as service=driveway, however it seems the wiki indicates service=driveway is for connecting to a specific property. Might be a good one to discuss more on talk-au to work out what's the best way to map shared driveways.

PS. node/5123393949 I fixed up the tagging for a crossing island.

I opened note/2812838 because from memory when I added the steps they stopped at the playground and didn't connect to the other path.

Hi the shared path you added at way/917699708 is overlapping the road which is incorrect. I've moved it to be adjacent from the road if you wanted to have a look and make sure it's correct? Otherwise some photos of what's there would help.

Yeah but on the other hand, people live there and it matches the wiki description for a hamlet, so regardless of the official name it's still a settlement, so in that sense was:place=hamlet doesn't seem right. Maybe I'll just leave it as is for now then, since the admin boundaries you updated already.

I don't have the local knowledge to know what it is called now. Only per the GNB, addressing data, and admin boundaries, "Berowra Creek" only exists as the watercourse name, not as a named place.

In the GNB Berowra Creek suburb node/117103168 is discontinued and is now part of the existing Berowra Waters suburb. Do you think we should either just delete this node or change it to was:place=hamlet? Though if the locals still call it Berowra Creek I guess it still exists, just doesn't form part of the admin boundary.

Hey mate, I just noticed that this way you contributed for Mt Saddleback Track exactly matches the geometry appearing in Land Tasmania's Transport Segments open data.
Just curious did you create this originally yourself from GPS, and they sourced it from here in OSM or did you source it from their dataset?

comment should have been https://maproulette.org/challenge/20137/task/101563718

Hi typically we don't map temporary popup things like this which are just open for one day every few years per osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_temporary_events_and_temporary_features

Further it looks like the geometries are quite a bit off. I'll remove the ones I spot.