footway=sidewalk should only be used on footpaths where they run along side a road, many of these here are walkways to access the buildings, no alongside a road and therefore shouldn't be footway=sidewalk.

good suggestion, I've mapped the area as brownfield, but this is from some drone imagery from August 2024. I'm not sure if construction has started yet.

I've cleaned up a few of these and this one. It does appear Hannah you're working with the best intentions to improve the tagging, but the way you've made these changes has introduced data issues due to the duplication of the ways. In JOSM what you'll need to do is add a node to the existing way (shortcut key is A), then press escape to stop it from continuing it as a way. You can now swap back to select mode (shortcut key is S), and select the node you added on the way, then under Tools > Split way. You'll now have split the way and can set different tags for the different segments. I believe this is what you've been trying to do .

I've never come across this kind of mapping before, so I was surprised that the wiki suggests this. I would think the way being tagged crossing=traffic_signals, and splitting the crossing way so that only the kerb to kerb section is crossing would be sufficient.

I agree with Kurisu here, the commercial landuse can be useful for some data consumers to show residential/retail/commercial/industrial landuse. Given no response in 2 years I've reinstated it in changeset/158436901

Either way I think a change of this scale is worth discussion first, especially when there may be different opinions within the community.

I'm fine with a revert, followed by a discussion, best to do that on talk-au or https://community.openstreetmap.org/ not here.

> this data is free to use for non-commercial research purposes with the correct credit.

OpenStreetMap does not fit that criteria.

> community consensus

I'm talking about the OpenStreetMap community, this was discussed at https://discord.com/channels/413070382636072960/926020366927790130/1292754771077365801 and the community consensus there is that OSM's standard on the ground rule should apply here, which is "Wattle Glen".

> community consensus

I'm talking about the OpenStreetMap community, this was discussed at https://discord.com/channels/413070382636072960/926020366927790130/1292754771077365801 and the community consensus there is that OSM's standard on the ground rule should apply here, which is "Wattle Glen".

This has swapped back and forth 12 times so far https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/node/892863645 please take into account the community consensus and best practice guidance. Per name=* it's clear to me that the common and on the ground usage is "Wattle Glen" with "Wattleglen" as the official_name=*.

Sorry for the late reply. You can have overlapping ways which share nodes (that helps with the topology and keeps it neat and tidy). That would be simpler here, you can also reuse a way as relation inner. eg. car park as a way, and re-use that as a wood relation inner. I think shared nodes between different ways rather than creating relations is easier to manage, but does come down to editing style.

Yeah absolutely. I was going to do that, but as a first draft found it easier to just sketch out the rough location first. Improvements welcome.

This changeset has been reverted in changeset/157035383

Generally OpenStreetMap practice is to "map what's on the ground" osm.wiki/Good_practice#Map_what's_on_the_ground

In this case, from the imagery it does indeed look like there are footpaths existing here, seems doubtful the council removed them.

See also the documentation for mapping footpaths footway=sidewalk

Thanks for the reply, I've tweaked it to align with what I can see.

hi you've extended the school zone much wider than what I can see on the ground, you've mentioned you've based this on a survey and local knowledge, but are you sure there was signage at all the entrance points where you start the school zone from?

hi, could you avoid hitting save in iD after every single object added? You can map out many objects, then just save at the end to create one changeset.

Hi, I just wanted to point out that SIX Maps still include some non CC BY terms https://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/js/sixmaps/app/coreTerms.html which we'd prefer to err on the side of caution and not use directly.
The data via https://www.spatial.nsw.gov.au/products_and_services/web_services and the Spatial Collaboration Portal for example https://portal.spatial.nsw.gov.au/portal/home/item.html?id=01de8834e88a45a1a673b120aa00c82e is explicitly covered by CC BY 4.0 and the OSMF CC BY waiver we have, so a safer choice. I realise it's likely the same data so in this case it's okay.

I did not realise there has been a whole discussion on this point already at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rfc-feature-proposal-continuous-crossings/105478

To add, eventually we could have every house in OSM with a driveway mapped, do you agree we should have every single one of those driveways crossing a footpath, tagged as highway=crossing?

I'm not saying driveway crossing is not unmarked, my thoughts are highway=crossing probably shouldn't even apply at all.

What I just posted on the Talk page is I guess I see a distinction between crossing a road and crossing a driveway, with a crossing on highway=primary you're crossing the road because you're walking along the sidewalk and need to get to the sidewalk on the other side, but with the intersection of a service=driveway and footway=sidewalk, you're never crossing to the other side of the road, you're staying on the same sidewalk, just you reach a point where vehicles may cross your path, so I don't see this intersection node as the same kind of feature.

crossing=unmarked includes driveways as a tricky case and simply acknowledges that sometimes highway=crossing is being used in OSM (it's just documenting usage "as is" in OSM) and also says "if such place would be considered as taggable with highway=crossing".

It's true, as a data consumer, I can check the highway types of the intersection and drop these out if I don't want them, but I can also ask, if they are always unmarked and always should be highway=crossing, why even bother at all?

The reason I noticed these is they started spamming my StreetComplete quests with all the other crossing tags, none of which should apply.