I noticed you've removed the cliff at https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/179935736 but this cliff still exists, could you restore it?

Hi Chris,

Please also see the current community guidance on closed/unsanctioned trails at osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Paths it's usually better to make it as disused and no access then delete it, especially where there is still some evidence of a trail on on the ground.

The point I keep coming back to is someone undertaking research of unsanctioned trails, ideally if they trail exist it should be in the OSM database for those research projects and tagging as disused and access=no would support that.

proposed is before construction, given the tracks are already constructed and the stations are under construction, I think we need something further along than just planned. So I support the change by kurisubrooks to turn the route back to construction.

hi, could you document your process in doing this in more detail? On the surface it looks like an automated edit osm.wiki/Automated_edits which would be covered by the Automated edits code of conduct osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct which requires documentation and discussion with the community of your automated edit plans before actually doing the upload.

From my side I'm keen to understand how you validated these detection weren't false positives, and how you conflated with existing data in OSM to ensure you haven't added duplicate data?

addr:unit is for specific addresses not ranges.
addr:flats is for marking the ranges.

glad to hear

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1207284873025559 has a vehicle gate, and the track certainly looks designed for maintenance or emergency service vehicles. The access tagging already specifies horse, walkers, bikes may use and authorised vehicles only.

See https://osmcha.org/changesets/132567680/ or for example this way https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/266742611

You added access=private, which per my comment would exclude walkers. I'm not familiar with this area but I'd be surprised if that was the case, likely it is just motor_vehicle=private?

hmm https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=315960919940097&focus=photo shows a gate designed for vehicles, the track itself is wide enough for it, and certainly looks like it was designed for it.

access=private means it's not legal even on foot, which is very rare in National Parks, did you mean motor_vehicle=private which implies authorised vehicles only but walkers may still access it?

This has been reverted in changeset/134048467 as this is a track.

Thanks looks like the horse access is correct (I can't see any specific signage at the intersection, would need to check the main sign at the Perimiter Trail head) but https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=334410434732805 shows this is a track so I'll change it back to track leaving horse=yes.

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.