We usually prefer to "map what's on the ground" osm.wiki/Good_practice#Map_what's_on_the_ground rather than what only appears on other maps.

node/11237813778 is not a ford, the footpath runs above the drain. I'll fix this.

This changeset has been reverted in changeset/163074921

hi sorry but I have to disagree here, based on my April 2024 and December 2024 surveys there is a footpath around the turning circle. This is not present on the 2022 imagery, so recent. When you deleted this what source/evidence were you relying on?

Thanks for improving this. Looks like you added the start in 2012 then I surveyed in 2020 and lost the track around the power line and had to bush bash out to Yanco Close, but I'd always wondered if there was a path to continue through somewhere.

Thanks for confirming you had it correct.

Please do add them on the wiki though.

As an aside, UPS was documented to use utility=power, but I don't think that's correct. utility=power was meant to mean this thing is part of the power network, ie. generation of power and distribution to consumers. Whereas these UPS cabinets are part of the traffic infrastructure, not the electricity network.

They should be power=generator + generator:source=battery (assuming they are batteries?) then utility=traffic/transport or something. I've added the power=generator to the wiki, but we should have a wider discussion about utility=*

Instead they should be

Yeah in fact traffic_signals and tidal flow signals are the only two types of street_cabinet=traffic_control I can think of. I guess variable message sign could be considered since the messages are designed to stop traffic or slow traffic or tell them one route is closed.

Per man_made=street_cabinet#Street_cabinet_categories I think street_cabinet=traffic_monitoring is a better fit than traffic_control. These devices all appear to be related to traffic monitoring rather than control, although I'm just guessing.

I guessed that TC was for Traffic Counter or Traffic Classifier based on node/12282844010 being TC. You can see the road markings where the embedded device is installed, but not sure about this location.

hi I can see a number of issues here.

1. https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=178701610829910&focus=photo seems to show a bike lane between the left turn lane and through traffic lanes. while I couldn't see any bicycle signage, I think it still can be considered a bicycle lane, there's no other reason they'd paint the road like that otherwise.

2. It appears you've removed a number of other valid tags like turn:lanes and lane width tags.

I think best we revert this change, unless you had any other comments about your change?

It looks like we already have a childcare mapped at node/12311154657 which is now duplicated at way/113359611

If we only have 1 childcare here there should only be 1 OSM object marked as childcare per osm.wiki/Good_practice#One_feature,_one_OSM_element

It looks like there's also a shop in the same building, so in that case if the childcare doesn't occupy the whole building best to use the node and not apply childcare to the building.

from your link this looks like a shared path, not exclusivly for bicycles only, is that the case?

If so in iD there is a "Shared Path" preset otherwise best to apply both bicycle=designated and foot=designated then segregated=no.

Previously it was tagged `compacted` which is "A mixture of larger (e.g., gravel typically 20mm) and smaller (e.g., sand) parts, compacted (e.g., with a roller), so the surface is more stable than loose gravel." per surface=compacted

You'll also see on the wiki that many roads signposted as "Gravel Road" in Australia would be tagged surface=compacted and not surface=gravel.

The `gravel` value is documented as "This tag has very large meaning range. Used for cases ranging from huge gravel pieces like track ballast used as surface, through small pieces of gravel to compacted surface." Typically I'd use surface=gravel for larger railway track ballast type of surfaces, then for fine gravel use surface=fine_gravel surface=fine_gravel

For a highly landscaped area like here it seems unlikely to be surface=gravel and surface=compacted seems more likely.

OSM tag values can't always be literally interpreted because this interpretation varies a lot among geographies.

This changeset has been reverted in changeset/162810447

This changeset has been reverted by changeset/162810411

This changeset has been reverted by changeset/162810358 due to the above mentioned reasons.

Longstanding OpenStreetMap principals include

1. Do correct errors -> osm.wiki/Good_practice#Do_correct_errors

2. Don't remove objects that you don't need or like -> osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don't_remove_objects_that_you_don't_need_or_like

In this case, the these existing building features are reasonable, and in my view they are pretty good. If you don't agree you're welcome to improve them, but don't delete others work just because you don't like it.

We'll revert this change, please avoid this going forward.

way/1316363251/history is non existent

I've reverted node/12381862239/history in this case you added a highway=crossing between the surface road and the underground walkway. Yes iD issued a warning here, but it's a false positive. Please take care when editing.