this changeset has been reverted in changeset/134048348 as this is a track. Feel free to improve further with tracktype and smoothness tagging.

For the same reasons as in changeset/132700483 this changeset has been reverted in changeset/134048283

for these reasons this changeset has been reverted in changeset/134048252

For reference here is the trail head which only indicates foot and horse riding as designated https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1207284873025559

Same question as for changeset/132700494, these are wide tracks accessible by vehicles therefore should be track. Furthermore bicycle=designated implies some signage or markings designating them for use by bicycles, could you point out where such signage was found?

hi what's your justification for changing these from track to path? From memory and from imagery they are still wide access tracks accessible by 4wd for emergency services and maintenance.

Hi Morb,

As you can see at https://github.com/microsoft/Open-Maps/issues/49 the license and waiver to use this data has issues that need to be resolved. As such we must refrain from using QLDs DCDB data in OSM.

Hi Ant, can you share any more detail? We would like to be sure that you do have the rights to publish Metromap derived data without restriction. A permission to use Metromap imagery for your own organisational projects, is not the same as rights to publish derived data without restriction.

reverted in changeset/129039096 I've retained some of the later conflicted changes around Market Street being split into two oneways.

Actually I couldn't find any sidewalk=yes on highway=footway in your edits here. So based on the issues raised, I've reverted this changeset in changeset/129037612

I will note that it looks like many of these changes to were to address JOSM Validator issues. The JOSM Validator is strongly opinionated and flags many things which are commonly accepted mapping practices here.

Sorry just on my previous post, I see you've done both, so while sidewalk=yes on the highway=footway doesn't make too much sense, you've also removed it from some other road highways.

> highway=footway and sidewalk=yes does not make sense.

Agreed, but your changes remove sidewalk from road ways, not highway=footway.

Spot on Ds5rUy. While it's reasonable for data consumers to assume no as a default value, sometimes mappers will map it to be explicit if they have checked. Sometimes it might be easily mistaken as oneway=yes by armchair mappers so we'd add oneway=no to avoid it being tagged without a survey.

Generally a good idea to try and split the changeset into similar changes as it makes it easier in cases like this.

Honestly I can't see anything in this changeset we should keep and would suggest we revert it.

Hi Reiner,

Reviewing your changeset, you've removed footway=sidewalk from the separately mapped highway=footway. It was correct beforehand so this will need to be restored.

Separately mapped footpaths (highway=footway + footway=sidewalk) can coexist with the sidewalk tag on the road way, and in my opinion it's better to do both. sidewalk=*#Separately_mapped_sidewalks documents how you can mark it as exists and separately mapped if you want (sidewalk:left=separate + sidewalk:right=separate) but personally I'd still just do sidewalk=both.

The crossings were mapped as ways with highway=footway + footway=crossing, which is what you've removed, so your comment about highway=crossing on nodes doesn't seem to apply to your changes.

Keep in mind that the established and community tagging practices do vary a bit in Australia compared to Germany, we've documented this at osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths here we will use highway=cycleway + foot=designated + bicycle=designated for shared paths and guideposts or markings are sufficient to indicate =designated.

You can see the changes at http://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/30738624

Hi and welcome to OSM.

Further to my comments on your note. The access=no tag shoudn't be set since generally the public can access this bridge. From what I could see on albit outdated imagery there is no special pedestrian or bicycle signage, therefore bicycle/foot shouldn't be designated.

Also the name should be the street name, bridge name can go under bridge:name=*.

Hi Milk Point,

TomTom is not a compatible data source so we'll need to revert these changes.

Further there is a community consensus around many of these name=* values not actually being names but rather descriptions (description=*) or destinations (osm.wiki/Relation:destination_sign) which are generally mapped using other tags and not as the name=* tag. If you don't think that's right please post back and join in the discussion, but otherwise in line with the community consensus these changes will be reverted.

-- aharvey, on behalf of DWG.

"...so long as these documents are not offered for resale..."

OSM's license allows for OSM data to be offered for resale, therefore the Metromap Terms of Use are not sufficient to use their imagery to derive data for inclusion in OSM.

highway=track is for roads, these aren't roads, they are mountain bike tracks. But yeah highway=track doesn't imply quality of which vehicles that can use it. These already had mtb:scale:imba, but that alone can't be used to tell if it's a mountain bike track or not.