I'm not a fan of adding superfluous nodes to make it look prettier, after all where do you stop you could keep adding arbitrary nodes to retain the smoothness at higher and higher zooms. Extra nodes make it much harder for future mappers to make changes as needed. Instead I believe we should model to get the topology correct and the best alignment then leave it to downstream consumers to apply their own post processing for additional smoothing for display.

Furthemore you've removed "dumplings" as a value from these instead of converting it to "dumpling" per cuisine=dumpling

I'm fine with converting the tag per the wiki, but not removing it completly.

local practice is we don't include addr:state, addr:postcode, addr:suburb since these are derived from the admin boundaries.

I'm okay with converting to singular but not sure how "dumplings;asian" became "asian;noodle" when simply converting to singular? Should be "asian;dumpling"

shouldn't "parking:lane:left" be converted to "parking:left=lane" rather than "parking:left=yes" or is it converted to "yes" if the options have changed in the new schema and it needs to be checked?

PS. I've updated the documentation around community car parks and bicycle parking at osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Transportation#%22Park_&_Ride%22_Commuter_Car_Parks if I've missed anything please feel free to fix or let me know.

PS. You might want to drop into the OSM Hackathon tomorrow https://geogeeks.org/2025/0514_osm-hackathon-city-of-canning.html

Within the wider OSM ecosystem, there are tools people have built to try and compare and flag differences, but I note that you can't just assume that OSM is wrong and a particular government dataset is correct if there are differences, so each case should be addressed on a case by case basis.

OSM tends to follow the on the ground rule and maps based on signage. All datasets may contain errors or may be outdated, including OSM and government published data.

It wouldn't be that hard to build a tool to compare road names from OSM to Main Roads WA.

There's no automatic ingesting of data, it's up to mappers to decide what to incorporate. There have been coordinated efforts in the past by Microsoft's mapping team to resolve differences in road names between OSM and government datasets.

I believe the resolution in those prior cases you noted was to update them in OSM, but there were still done case by case.

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?