The Main Roads WA data such as https://catalogue.data.wa.gov.au/dataset/mrwa-road-network per the Australian Data Sources page at osm.wiki/Australian_Data_Sources#Western_Australia shows it may be used since it is CC BY 4.0 and Main Roads WA completed the OSMF LWG's CC BY waiver at osm.wiki/File:OSM_CCBY_Consent-MainRoadsWA.pdf

That's sufficient for us. It's already an approved data source for OSM, and selected data is enabled by default as background layers in editors including iD and JOSM.

Landgate data https://www.landgate.wa.gov.au/location-data-and-services/discovering-landgate-data/ isn't under an open license and not can't be used for OSM.

natural=tree_row should be used on a linear way not an area covering the foliage, see natural=tree_row

Also please don't tag leaf_cycle and leaf_type as mixed as a way to tag unknown, only select it if they really are mixed. These all appear to be broad-leaved evergreens, but it's only a guess from imagery.

Further some of these aren't really tree_row, you've just drawn an area around a group of trees, it's better to just use a node for each individual tree in that case.

While additions of buildings and trees in OSM is very welcome and we appreciate any contributions, please don't use OSM as a playground for your own modelling work. You could take an extract for that and then use that data in private, otherwise if you want to contribute back to OSM I'm happy to help with feedback to improve your contributions.

Thanks. The gate is probably locked at night, but I think it's fine to set locked=no as during the day it's not locked. If we know the specific opening hours we could use conditional restrictions to specify when it's locked and when it's unlocked.

Looks good.

I'll open a thread to discuss, because I think they should exist in OSM. In this case The Shire as a region probably should exclude the Royal National Park, unlike the LGA which includes it.

But even in the case of those that might share the same boundaries like the Northern Beaches region/district vs the Northern Beaches Council they are different features so should be represented by different objects in OSM.

Thanks!

Ah I missed this change. My intention was to map the regions of Sydney including "Northern Beaches", "North Shore", "Lower North Shore", "Upper North Shore", "Inner West", "Eastern Suburbs", "St George", "Sutherland Shire", "Forest District", "GBD", "Canterbury-Bankstown", "Hills District", "Southern Sydney", "South Western Sydney", "Western Sydney".

These are typically above the suburb level, but are independent of local governments. Especially with how local government boundaries have been changing, local government areas are mostly administrative only, in the same way as electoral boundaries. No body refers where they live based on their local government boundaries, they refer to their place, be that the suburb or region.

Since "The Shire" as a place/region exists independently of the administrative boundaries of the Sutherland Shire LGA, I was thinking it should exist as a distinct feature in OSM, and therefore is not a duplicate.

Would you prefer I open up a wider community discussion?

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1422096468142694&focus=photo makes it hard to tell but seems like this driveway might also use 47 and 49 Wicks Road as addresses? If so these could still exist inside the site area being 51 Wicks Road.

I've put the tags back on the area.

It's established practice to only split the way into a dual carriageway where there is a physical separation osm.wiki/Dual_carriageway. In this case there is just 4 lanes, 2 go forward, 2 turn right onto tho motorway,

Instead it's better to use change=*

Whether data consumers utilise that tag is up to them.

I'd consider splitting the way here just to address a router mapping for the router osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don't_map_for_the_router which isn't good practice.

I've reverted this back to the prior state.

I don't have a strong opinion either way, so I'm okay to leave them if you want.

I re-read railway=* regarding abandoned vs razed:

"The course of a former railway which has been abandoned and the track removed. The course is still recognized through embankments, cuttings, tree rows, bridges, tunnels, remaining track ties, building shapes and rolling or straight ways. For demolished rails that are no longer identifiable, e.g. that have been built over, some use the highly questionable railway=razed."

It don't know about here, but it seems like some places especially through houses are more railway=razed than railway=abandoned. To be abandoned would required at least some evidence visible by most people on the ground.

FYI there were some changes at changeset/165825536 to the interchange changes you made here, if you were interested in commenting your thoughts?

Per highway=motorway_junction highway=motorway_junction is really the tag for a motorway exit, it's the node along the motorway where you can take an exit, so it's no suitable for an interchange.

The way at way/1292847049/history is still probably the best way to mark the interchange, you could do a relation which includes all the road segments, but this area way also does the job in my opinion.

So I think it's best that all the interchange tags are moved to the way and we drop highway=motorway_junction, and not on this lone node in the middle. The way does a better job at showing the extent of the interchange and all the roads which form it, if it's just tagged as a node we don't have an idea of scale of the whole interchange site.

We don't really have a suitable tag for an interchange currently.

If there's nothing left on the ground should it even be mapped here at all? There's OpenHistoricalMap for historical features. If it is kept in OSM then abandoned means there's still some evidence on the ground, according to osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix#Stages_of_decay it seems it might be razed?

way/1383500133 should be demanding_mountain_hiking not alpine? It's not typically alpine here.

Not sure what this has to do with Google Maps, this is OpenStreetMap. But thanks for confirming the dedicated bicycle lights in that case we can use designated.

Seems reasonable to me.

do the signals have a bicycle traffic light? eg like https://www.nsw.gov.au/driving-boating-and-transport/roads-safety-and-rules/bicycle-safety-and-rules/riding-bikes-near-pedestrians

If they do it should be bicycle=designated + foot=designated.

We're using "designated" if there is signage or markings for exclicty use by that mode rather than "yes" which just means is legally able to use it, but no markings or signage indicating it's specifically for that mode.

Thanks. You should explicitly set oneway=yes on these.

No reply, I've reverted this in changeset/165534070