Hi, to chime in here, I reviewed Nearmap's public terms and it does appear like even if you subscribe to their imagery that does not mean you have complete ownership of derived content (like tracing features) and can't then license this under OSM's license. So unless you can point out otherwise that you do have the necessary permissions from Nearmap then you can't trace from their imagery for OSM. For that reason I believe this changeset and others should be reverted, you can re-create the changes from other imagery sources.

If it is off-track bushbashing with no visible path on the ground then they can be deleted, but if there is a visible path on the ground but just not an official walking track or maintained track then we can still tag that as informal=yes. If access is legally forbidden then we can mark it as access=no. Doing this helps let people who build maps with OpenStreetMap data make their maps more accurate and useful.

osm.wiki/Australia/Walking_Tracks

Hi could you please confirm the situation with these tracks, did they ever exist on the ground, or are they just closed but still visible? Or are they mostly overgrown and restored?

Some of your tracks from this changset were deleted recently in https://osmcha.org/changesets/116519029/ at the time of your survey were these tracks on the ground, just working out if we need to restore them.

Based on a comment at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2022-January/015551.html that the tracks do exist and based on the fact that these were all surveyed recently I'll restore them as existing on the ground. Where they have been officially closed this can be tagged as such, see examples at osm.wiki/Australia/Walking_Tracks#Tagging_Examples.

If the track is not officially closed, just not an officially formed or maintained track, then we can use informal=yes to tag it as such.

Keen to work together on ensuring OpenStreetMap data here is an accurate reflection of the ground situation.

This changeset has been reverted by changeset/116096916 on behalf of the DWG as a mass automated edit without prior community consultation, while discussion of the change can take place.

This changeset has been reverted by changeset/116096786 on behalf of the DWG as a mass automated edit without prior community consultation, while discussion of the change can take place.

I've removed the bit of path here to match my gps trace and what I found from my survey.

Hi, I surveyed this area and only found a lookout slightly north of the one you added (which I've now added) and didn't find any bench. The path you added went through a locked gate into the pony club so I wasn't able to check? Are you sure there was a bench there and the track you added is in the right location?

Hey mate, I disagree with this a city is an area not a single point, in OSM I can see how to makes sense to tag both as a node and an area as one captures the area and the other the central point of the city. Since this is a major change I'll raise it on talk-au for discussion.

I've reverted this changeset, resolving the conflicts to remove the toll on this section of the M5/General Holmes Drive.

I've reinstored the Uluru Climb using the was lifecycle prefix to indicate that it's not there anymore but was. Useful for other mappers and some data consumers for the time being.

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.