Yeah I did that one together with this one, changeset/161365383 I hope I got it right.

I added this based on the new school name appearing in the Geographic Names Register, but I realise the name can be approved well before the construction even starts and the location data isn't always accurate, so I added this one a bit too much in haste.

Looking into it more, it looks like the school will open in temporary buildings on George Street for Term 1 2025 at way/1004226287

I'll move this one across to that site, but any further local knowledge or improvements welcome!

Thanks! I didn't realise there were new boundaries here, looks like it was done 1.5 years ago too.

Thanks. I think we should the

1. Get a documented consensus that addr:suburb, addr:state, addr:postcode should not be tagged where they are inherited from the admin_boundary, providing reasoning and justification for this as well.
2. Take this consensus to iD and then request these fields not be included in the preset field.

It's not just this one, it'll all of them. I think systematic bulk changes like this should be first discussed, or at least discussed before continuing further.

Even changing cycleway/sidewalk:left and :right into a single tag https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/447120360 I think it's not helpful, while the two different ways of tagging can be interpreted as the same, for mappers entering data it's best to retain what was mapped.

I'll ask if you can please stop doing these validator edits, then I believe we should just go ahead and mass-revert all of them, then going forward systematic changes should be first discussed with the community.

Yeah in my view a lot of the JOSM validator warnings are too strict.

For example source:geometry is fine and acceptable to use to document the source of the geometry source:geometry=* even on nodes. It doesn't need to be changed to source:position doing so has no benefit and just creates noise which makes it harder for mappers.

level=0 is a good way to tag something as being explicitly on level=0, otherwise you can't know if it wasn't mapped yet or really is on level 0. In fact for this reason alone I think we should/need to revert all these "Batch edit tags using JOSM validator" as it's damaging the data.

Furthermore can you explain your exact process for these changes? Because it appears like an automated edit, or are you manually reviewing and applying fixes. If an automated change it should be discussed first.

Hi could you please advise the rationale behind theses changes? To me these look questionable and I don't think we should necessarily be actioning all JOSM validator issues.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/161476767

hi thanks for the edit here. Per osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only the name value should only reflect the street name, in this case being a private driveway it likely doesn't have a name therefore name should be omitted/empty.

The fact that it is a Private Driveway can be specified with access=private + highway=service + service=driveway, then it being a shared driveway is specified with driveway=pipestem. I've improved the tags based on this.

thanks i missed this one.

I was going to suggest we disable suburb, postcode, and state in iD as it's only in rare cases when you might need to set them, and the trouble they cause by people adding incorrect or superfluous data is real, but I realised that might not be the case in every state? Do you know if we need these for any states still?

Still I thought name:etymology was meant to only contain the persons name, as it's "intended for a name or sometimes a word", further details could go in `name:etymology:description` or `name:etymology:note`. We could just delete the whole `name:origin` that was there and got moved to `etymology` if it's an issue.

name:etymology=* says "This key is intended for a name or sometimes a word, but not a full etymology tracing the evolution of that word, as one would find in a dictionary."

Previously the etymology value was "Lt.William Bradley" but you've replaced that with what was in the origin key which was more like a description. Seems wrong per the current documentation of the tag.

This has been reverted in changeset/161433740 since it seems they do exist in some form on the ground. Tag improvements welcome.

This has been reverted in changeset/161433740 since it seems they do exist in some form on the ground. Tag improvements welcome.

This has been reverted in changeset/161433740 since it seems they do exist in some form on the ground. Tag improvements welcome.

This has been reverted in changeset/161433740 since it seems they do exist in some form on the ground. Tag improvements welcome.

This has been reverted in changeset/161433740 since it seems they do exist in some form on the ground. Tag improvements welcome.

> The vandals are those who cut illegal tracks through National parks, destroying the environment and habitat.

Correct.

> I am simply upholding Parks department policy.

And I'm simply upholding the OpenStreetMap community policy.

Parks Victoria can do more if they want to work with OpenStreetMap, and I hope they do. While it's great they publish content under CC BY 4.0, like other Victorian departments osm.wiki/Australian_Data_Sources#Victoria they could complete a waiver so it's clear we can use content they publish to improve OSM.

For example https://www.parks.vic.gov.au/-/media/project/pv/main/parks/publication-uploads/dandenong-ranges-national-park---map---ferntree-gully-area_08032023234117695.pdf?rev=77059838aa194edaa1d3f3136cbdfaab is CC BY but not available for OSM to use due to this.

Along with this and a more pro-active collaboration with OpenStreetMap around the current situation on the ground would be helpful.

These ways have seen been re-added by another user, which is disappointing that this changeset happened and could not have been reverted sooner. The original contribution by @DM9 was lost now.

This changeset has been reverted in changeset/161408810