Thanks for this improvement!

We'll revert this changeset to restore the original mapping. You'll need to handle any processing after obtaining OSM data on your end, it sounds like you're wanting to apply a dissolve operation on the name attribute.

Hi Zulu99, actually it was picked up by another mapper and reported to DWG.

https://osmcha.org/ is probably the easiest option to monitor for changes to an area, you can setup a filter to limit what shows up and you can then monitor through OSMCha directly or via the RSS feed.

I can see per the Google Street View imagery that this is a shared cycleway but we can't use that as as source for mapping. But from your comment you have first hand knowledge indicating it's a shared path.

I've sent a note to HighRouleur that many of these cycleway changes are being disputed and to try and take care to ensure only changes validated on the ground are made especially when unclear from other sources. At the moment I'm assuming these changes were made in good faith from a survey, if you have evidence that any of these cycleways changed to footways are actually for use by bicycles on the ground then please let me know.

service=parking_aisle should only be on the section of the road which has parking spots accessible from it, in this case it looks like you've tagged a longer stretch of the road with this tag. Do you think it's better to split the way and only tag on the sections that this occurs?

Looking at https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/91679681 on imagery it looks much more like service=alley as it provides rear entrance access, more so than service=driveway which mainly provides access to a specific property. Would you agree?

hi it looks like you've dragged the address node https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/node/2120364148 was that accidental, could you restore it if unintentional?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116772039

Hi, the highway=cycleway tag you added here to https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/45023175 was recently removed. Do you remember your source and what the situation was/is on the ground?

Hi Tony, HighRouleur, I'm investigating the dispute here with a fresh set of eyes. @HighRouleur did you confirm this on the ground or is it based on a particular data source?

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.