I thought as a QA flag it's meant for where an end of a way is close to another way, so QA tools flag it as "maybe should be connected", but if it really shouldn't be connected because it doesn't connect in real life you use "noexit=yes" to say, "hey QA, no really you can't exit here it shouldn't be connected".

That's a bit different to "it does really connect in real life, but for various reasons we don't want or can't yet connect it, so I'll set noexit=yes so your QA tool stops flagging it". The latter would be best kept as an external list, similar to how StreetComplete "ignore" don't add a tag but instead maintain a private list of "ignored" quests.

In this case it likely does connect, so the QA is correctly flagging it as something that should be fixed.

People have different opinions of how much detail to map. If it's something that would be covered by a council development application, or something that might affect the development planning rules, I think it's reasonable to map. If it's covered by legislation, for example a heritage item on your property you can't destroy, or a protected tree you can't cut down, these should be reasonable to map. A trampoline that has no development/planning restrictions and isn't a fixed structure I don't see much point and mapping and think we probably shouldn't, but people still map them and consensus seems to be to allow it if visible from imagery.

hi, it would be helpful for others if you could explain your thinking and rationale in setting the place type each time you change it. See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

See access=*

On the other hand if you do want to be expclit on who can access use something like no top level access=* tag, but then tag motor_vehicle=permit + bicycle=permit + foot=permit. In this case it sounds like you get a 3 day transit permit, I'm not sure how long a distance but do they grant this for walkers walking through?

hang on, mode specific access tags like motor_vehicle override the top level access. So if you set access=permit and then motor_vehicle=yes you're saying you need a permit, unless you're driving then you don't need a permit. Since this isn't the case, I suggest you can just leave out the specific modes, unless some modes aren't allowed, then you can just set access=permit as a catch all.

Thanks. Based on access=permit

> This tag should be used in cases where a permit is required, but is routinely granted to everyone requesting it. In cases where access to permit is obstructed it would be more appropriate to tag these areas access=private or access=no. So access=permit does not apply where permit is rarely granted, or only granted in exceptional circumstances, or if obtaining it is complex or there is a long waitlist.

It does sound like access=permit is better.

Ok, so I guess it comes down to if protect_class is meant to be strictly applying based on IUCN category, or if it's just for IUCN-like categories that can apply even without a published IUCN.

A bit like if sac_scale applies only where we have an "official" SAC scale, or can it apply based on sac_scale like values, or if mtb:scale:imba only applies based an IMBA scale. In the latter two it's widespread to apply them without an assigned category or scale by choosing the "like" category.

I'm tempted to say protect_class should be the same, in that you can use 1-4 even without an IUCN and instead use iucn_level as being only for those officially assigned.

I'm not too fussed either way though, for me the protection_title is sufficient, but it would still be nice to have a globally consisnent way to say this areas is for wildlife/fauna protection, ie. "Habitat/Species Management Area" ie. protect_class=4.

Do you think we should then change all Wildlife Protection Area's to protect_class=7 given they are all 4 currently?

noexit=yes

> Use the noexit=yes tag at the end of a highway=* to indicate that there is no possibility to travel further by any transport mode along a formal path or route.

It seems like one can travel from the road to the house via the inclinator, adding a noexit=yes in the middle implies there is no possibility to travel further than that point, which is likely not the case.

It still should only be used when valid on the ground, not as a way to tell a validator to ignore a false positive.

Which validator?

I've removed the noexit=yes since the inclinator can likely be exited at either end, to access the residence and to access the street.

hi in this changeset you converted a main Brisbane CBD road into a video wall, without further justification I've reverted this changeset in changeset/166591920

hi I'm not sure what you were trying to do here, but your change wasn't related to traffic signs and broke the Brisbane City and Spring Hill boundary relations.

I've reverted this changeset in changeset/166591839

In my changeset from 2023-02 at changeset/133064253 I noted the construction then later that year I see you've removed the construction area and redrawn the demolished buildings even though construction was still ongoing? https://www.newgreenschatswood.com.au/news

We'll need to resurvey here...

it shows up on Sentinel-2 imagery so I've updated the geometry, it looks like you had it too big, I tried to keep the shape but it's quite hard without a higher resolution image.

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.