Looks like you have some duplicates
way/1359830887/history
way/1360049809/history

Also not sure why https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/1360049806 was removed by another user since it wasn't duplicated...

hi the Esri World Imagery has bad resolution here, so please don't change building geometries which are very accurately mapped from high resolution DCS NSW Imagery to match worse resolution imagery.

Due to this I've reverted this changeset.

hi not sure why two features were deleted here? It's too hard to tell from the imagery sourced you've used and DCS NSW Imagery still shows them clearly. I've also fixed the positioning of the other building you moved. It's fine for building/water to overlap where they do on the ground.

I've improved this to shift the coastline to highest visible tide per imagery. Also please note that in this area the Esri World Imagery won't have the best alignment, usually the DCS NSW Imagery is best for alignment.

I've tweaked this to shift the shoreline to highest visible tide on imagery.

I've tweaked the area here to improve the accuracy.

hi similar to my previous comment it's not correct to just shift the building/waterway so they don't overlap if in reality they do. coastline and river shorelines are mapped to high tide, which from the DCS NSW Imagery here is much closer to the building and likely covers part of it.

hi, in this changeset you've just shifted the building and river so they don't overlap, but that's not correct because in real life they do, the building is sitting over the water. I belive we should revert this change.

ps. you can enable the "DCS NSW Land Parcel Lot" from JOSM Imagery to show lot boundaries.

Thanks for confirming this. I think given the placed barrier and signage then it's correct to mark as access=no as you have. I think at some point it could be further downgraded to abandoned:highway=path which means it won't usually show up on maps built with OSM but will still be present in the database.

Thanks looks like a positive outcome here way/1255574200/history

I think what @philt3r is trying to do here is mark houses which have an electricity connection from the grid. I think that would be okay, you can observe this from overhead wires from the street, although that doesn't work in areas where the network is underground.

I think it's useful data, but perhaps the specific tags need discussion, and we need to ensure we're not using copyrighted data sources from Essential Energy.

Looking forward to hearing back from you @philt3r

I've fixed the dragged node, and removed the power:meter since this is likely from the stated copyrighted source.

hi could you explain how you've determined these tag values?

hi I've re-instated this but used the abandoned lifecycle prefix, since there is still a faint painted outline of the netball court, but given the faded paint and the parking lines seems unlikely still in used.

Yeah I think based on your knowledge here reverting back is best, and possibly adding informal=yes.

I've fixed this now.

Hi, this track you edited has been recently deleted, did you have any local knowledge you can add?

way/12555742

Hi, this track you added has been recently deleted, did you have any local knowledge you can add?

way/1255574200/history

hi and welcome to OSM.

Please see osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Legal_Access

OSM can contain data for sanctioned, informal, and closed/illegally constructed paths and our guidelines page explains the reasoning and what tags can be used to communicate the exact situation on the ground to OSM data consumers.

Essentially if there is some physical evidence on the ground, then it can be mapped in OSM. If there are track closure sign, or other substantiated sources indicating no access we can mark that with access=no, and possibly mark the track as abandoned or disused if formally closed off for rehabilitation.

Further you can use informal=yes to indicate it's not a formal track.