For the ways like way/929237617 and way/929237615 I couldn't see any route signage if these have no formed path and no route signage then per osm.wiki/Australia/Walking_Tracks these should likely not be mapped. Are they part of any formal route?

I've updated this in changeset/119327254

It's generally considered better practice to use turn:lanes=* on the existing way rather than adding a new way where there is no physical separation, which does not seem to be the case here from what I can tell.

I'll update the tagging to use turn:lanes

hi I think it's better to use the hazmat=* tag, so hazmat=no for this. Is there a reason for using access:conditional?

This just looks like you're taking the piss. I believe Dian was just making the point that turn lanes shouldn't be split from the main way 100m up when it's just white paint that separates them, and instead you should use turn:lanes=* and similar tags. It doesn't mean you need to push the slip/link road so far that it's a 90 degree angle, for example https://osmcha.org/changeset/118114029 is a better middle ground in my opinion as it mostly keeps the way to the centerline of the road but avoids extreme 90 degree joins.

per note/2941525

reverted in changeset/117869922

Hey Graeme, the note was for the missing steps from the path here up to the lookout. I left a note until we can get a gps trace to map it. So I've reverted this changeset in changeset/117870564 and will re-open the note. Mapillary also shows no steps on the cyclepath.

The only argument I can see for having it in the harbour is it may be a better labelling position cartographically (less clutter and easier to read), but that shouldn't be our focus, we should map it accurately as data first and foremost.

I agree with repositioning the place=city Sydney node from the harbour to the CBD. The CDB is the centre so that's where the node should be.

I've deleted node/9506803261/history as that's not an appropriate use of place=plot per the wiki and we don't need to keep a node to show where the Sydney city node used to be.

I didn't get around to asking on talk-au, but I noticed someone else restored place=city, which I think is more correct. I wouldn't call it double mapping because the node is part of the relation so data consumers can identify it as the same feature. So one feature, but two geometries, one as the area, one as the central point.

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?