Hmm all the other Wildlife Protection Area's in OSM in NSW use protect_class=4 and that seems to align with other countries per protect_class=* although I understand these aren't IUCN assigned, so based on that could be protect_class=7. I don't mind either way so long as they have protection_title set, but maybe we should still use 4 to align globally despite the lack of IUCN?

I've converted it to an area covering the bushland as an initial estimate with a fixme note. I see protect_class=4 is more for IUCN so I've changed it to 7

Sorry I don't agree with this change. The Wildlife Protection Area should be tagged as a protected_area with a protect_class based on the protection of native wildlife. While yes the tag should be used an an area, in this case the node is a placeholder until we can identify and map the exact bounds. It's well established that it's okay to place a node first to at least give a rough location until the precise bounds are added.

no it was correct before, one is for the wikidata item for this National Park and the other is the wikidata item for the operator of the park (NPWS). I've fixed this now.

The change from access=restricted to access=yes, according to https://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/visit-a-park/parks/macquarie-marshes-nature-reserve

> Recognised for its important wetlands, access to this nature reserve is limited to management and research staff, and there are no visitor facilities.

They mention some guided tours but if access is only to management and research staff or those on guided tours, I think we may need something stricter than access=yes.

The previous access=restricted isn't a documented tag value, but I guess it's okay. It could also be access=private.

I didn't realise the tagging was a mess, I thought we had landuse=forest for land managed for forestry and natural=wood to say the area is covered in trees, but alas it seems the tagging is still problematic. Given landuse=forestry could we not just tag the areas as landuse=forestry?

Duplicating the tags for one of the nodes on the way isn't ideal.

The duplicate tags on the way nodes still exist. There are multipolygon/boundary relations with landuse=forest, which then contain a single node on one of the ways with landuse=forestry with a matching name.

In JOSM, I first used overpass to download operator="Forestry Corporation of NSW" then "Selected", "type:relation & landuse=forest & type=boundary", then selected the member ways, then "Select way nodes", then search with "find in selection" for "type:node & landuse=forestry". These 154 nodes then duplicate the existing landuse=forest into the nodes, so I then deleted the tags after reviewing to ensure that none of them should apply to the node.

changeset/59796573

there's different mapping styles, but likely the best is to mark these as a building and have the way follow the footprint of the building. Alternatively you can mark the whole property as an area with the address.

This is a 6 story office building, I would be surprised if a small nutritionist business took up the whole building. The street level imagery indicates there is likely multiple tenants here. If you have office space here best to just add a node within the building, rather than on the building.

Further your website https://www.rosiewareclinicalnutrition.com.au/services lists no office address and says all services are online/phone only "I am currently only offering online consultations within Australia.", so I'm not sure adding this here is best.

Based on this I'll remove the tags from the building.

HGV, busses, taxis are all covered under `motor_vehicle`. There's not much left outside of motor_vehicle, foot, and bicycle.

I understand your point that you're applying a default of no then applying the exceptions, but why should that be access=no vs access=yes. Unlike a military base which might have a general "no access" restriction regardless of mode, a general access restriction doesn't really apply here. If anything it would be there is general public access, but specific modes are restricted due to regulation.

I've reverted this changeset since it deleted many features which quite likely still exist including a waterway=stream, a natural=wood and highway=track.

Please see osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F and osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property for details on why features which exist on private property may still exist in OpenStreetMap.

If there are firetrails, driveways or walking tracks which don't allow the public to use but do exist on the ground you can use access=private to mark them as no public access.

Thanks, but actually these are semi detached not detached building=semidetached_house

is the noexit meant to be no exit from the building or no exit from the inclinator? either way it appears from the imagery that the house below is accessed via the driveway, into the building (or carport) then down the inclinator or steps to the house, either way this node is just in the middle between the driveway and inclinator.

why is this one noexit?

Yeah that sounds good.

There's not really any best practice around this so really up to the mappers preference. For me if the refuge island is long I might map it as footway=traffic_island, but if it's only 1 or 2 meters I would just use a node with crossing:island=yes.

If the shared paths don't have markings how do we know it's a shared path? Sorry I'm not from WA so I don't know how it works, but osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Footpath_Cycling indicates you don't have the same footpath cycling restrictions we have in NSW, so would be permitted.

Usually if bicycles are explicitly signposted or marked it would be bicycle=designated but if bicycles are allowed but not explicitly signed or marked then bicycle=yes, but again I don't have the local knowledge so take this with caution.

I've added bicycle=yes since it seems implied that bicycles can continue through due to the shared path of either side. I've also updated the tagging of the refuge island section.

I don't think it's useful to tag each residential property as leisure=garden.

This has since been fixed.

all I could find in existing documentation is osm.wiki/Good_practice#Map_curves_with_an_appropriate_number_of_nodes which doesn't really tell us much...