I mixed this one up with the tree edits, but still from my perspective these kinds of edits border in the region between an import and an enthusiastic mapper. An enthusiastic mapper taking a lot of photos and mapping in OSM from those photos is core to OSM and we don't expect the data to be perfect. It's just on the other end where we have automated feature detection and automated imports, the potential to cause harm is much larger so we have osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines as a way to try and support imports while minimising the risk of harm.

It's hard to review these without the source images you used, but from what I can see in the imagery we have around node/12032276774 you have placed 4 trees, but I can only see the eastern 2. Are these new plantings? Or false positives?

done

way/1254815681 I can't see any footpath here, with nothing on the ground I would suggest we delete this one. Thoughts?

secondly, I feel the name "TfNSW Traffic Controlled Site X" is a description and not a proper name per osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

If feel the information would be better encoded with ref=* for the number and operator=* for the operator.

Since I can see you've worked on a lot of traffic lights, is this work all from a ground survey?

hi, I've moved the ref=0634 tag back onto the traffic signals nodes after it was re-modelled. I can't see any documentation on the type=site site=traffic_signals relation, did you come up with this scheme or was there some documentation somewhere you referred to?

I don't have any local knowledge here, but the physical attributes here are less important (and are mapped as their own objects or tags on the ways for data consumers to consider), based on importance in the road network with this road appearing as the main connector to the town tells me it should have a high classification.

Hi Harsimranjit,

A few things, if you're only relying on this dataset, then I don't think you should be replacing existing speed limits data in OSM, as how would you know this dataset is correct and OSM is not?

What you could do is use this data to as a hint to check other sources like aerial imagery and street level imagery and then perhaps use this to add a changeset comment to the original contributor.

Third, looking through you're account it appears you're importing this dataset and if so then you must follow the guidelines at osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines

Yes, I have no idea why I did it that way, fix now. Thanks for flagging.

While I still don't fully support mapping like this, at the very least I've removed the descriptive names and fixed the incorrect (upstream) directions.

fortera just pointed out that this source is on data.sa.gov.au and therefore falls under the existing DataSA waiver.

> OSM definitely is cautious about using data sources and I have always respected that

did you end up reverting those SA speed cameras you added from these non-compatible sources you mentioned at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-April/014539.html , honest question I couldn't find a response to the original thread.

Hi, I don't think these changes should apply. The body of water is mapped, and for these large harbours there isn't a clear centerline like there might be for a river.

> By publishing these trails OSM is legitimizing them and encouraging their use.

That's absolutely not the case, if things are entered into OSM correctly, then we publish data that says someone illegally created a trail here and it's use is not authorised. We are aiming to accurately document what actually exists, we are not aiming to falsly claim that these are authorised for use.

Deleting these ways causes a lot of havok as users re-add the ways again and then we loose the history, it's much better to leave the way in OSM and tag it more accurately.

This is all documented on the wiki links I provided, but I'm happy to help. I invite you to join the #oceania channel on https://discord.com/invite/openstreetmap where we can discuss further and provide assistance.

Thanks for using the abandoned tagging prefix along with access=no. I can see there has been a lot of edit warring going on here, with trails being added, deleted, re-added, re-deleted. By having the way exist in OSM and tagged in this way hopefully we can prevent the edit warring, and clearly document the current status of what actually exists, while preventing most maps misrepresenting the trail as open/available for use.

hi the name should be the proper name only osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only and I wouldn't usually expect "Walking Track" to be used as a name if it's just describing it as a walking track. In this case foot=designated can be used to mark a track as designated for walking.

Hi Chris,

That's cool, I think we all agree that NPA don't approve tracks being created without approval.

That said if they have been created without approval and exist in some form, then we have ways to map those as such. We have a section documenting community guidelines at osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Paths

So if the track physically exists but the park authority prohibits access and intends to rehabilitate it, then tagging it as abandoned:highway=type or disused:highway=type along with access=no helps tell OSM data consumers more accurately what's happening here. This is more appropriate than just deleting the way, at least where these is still something existing on the ground.

osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only
ref=*

Did you follow the import guidelines osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines by discussing with the community first and documenting your import plan? That should happen before doing an import, so these kinds of issues can be discussed before hand where it's easier to change.

I haven't gone through everything but things like way/403559117 should usually be ref=15 not name=15.

Agreed it should only be on objects where they may be referenced by that number, eg. picnic sites, BBQs etc.

Hi Chris,

I'm not doubting or disagreeing with you that these are illegally constructed and closed to the public. I would just like to see OpenStreetMap data accurately reflect the ground truth and I advocate mapping these in OSM as closed or disassembled tracks in a way that allows downstream applications to omit it from their maps.

It's certainly not because we want to have these tracks showing as open for use, I can't see anyone in the community advocating for that.

I suggest Parks Victoria join in the community channels such as the mailing list https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or the community forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/oceania/73 to contribute to how this situation is handled. We have some guidelines at osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Legal_Access but there's always scope to improve them.