I'm not sure and I see what you mean as it is likely part of the bicycle route but apart from that it doesn't seem to have any other features that would indicate it's a cycleway or shared path, it looks and functions more as a walkway, so based on that I thought it shouldn't be highway=cycleway.

highway=cycleway + bicycle=dismount does have a bit of use which seems to be where cycleway is clear but there is a section where signage says to dismount.

The bridge stairs at way/153296507 would likely qualify for this but because they are stairs they are getting highway=steps instead.

Another example is at https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=301605831538676 where it's a shared path, the lane markings continue but the signs say to dismount, so in that case I think highway=cycleway + bicycle=dismount is correct (based on the fact that we tag shared paths as highway=cycleway).

the waterway needed to be split here so that the section could be removed, I checked over this in JOSM and repaired the boundary relation

I changed these to better match what the transport agency use as it's more akin to the route name rather than the "MODE: FROM => TO" format.

you can use bridge=boardwalk rather than bridge=yes for a boardwalk. see bridge=boardwalk

Yes the foot tag was "no" because pedestrians are not allowed to walk along the western side of the bridge. The no pedestrian sign at the bottom of the steps indicates this https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=330705058471263

The steps here are being replaced but the new ramp doesn't look to be opening until 2026.

From what I can till nothing changed in this changeset except for the fixme tag and changing the source:geometry tag to "geoportal.gov.pl:ortofoto" which looks wrong, this in in .au not in .pl

If the boundary changed here we can update this from the Geoscape Admin Boundaries dataset which updates quarterly, but I wouldn't recommend doing that in iD.

The fields I mentioned previously "data about antenna polarisation, elevation, frequency, height, manufacturer, power rating, reference codes, start dates, tower type/construction and names" but really anything copied from other datasets is problematic.

The ACMA RRL database is not compatible for use in OSM, see their license terms at https://www.acma.gov.au/radiocomms-licence-data#terms-and-conditions.

I'm not sure what difference the the data being the same makes? If the same data is published by A, B, and C if it's not sufficiently licensed we still can't use it in OSM.

Wikidata I believe has a much lower barrier in terms of copyright, they are okay with copying data from copyrighted sources under the claim "data is not copyrightatable" but generally OSM sets the bar higher that if the publisher claims their data is protected by copyright we don't try to go against them.

No worries.

The Linked LWG determination doesn't really apply here, that's saying it's okay to source the opening hours of a restaurant A from their own website, then the opening hours of restaurant B from their own website and so forth. I agree that's fine, I do this sometimes too.

If someone collected and maintained a bunch of data into a database and published that it could still be covered by copyright or in some jurisdictions database rights, so we won't take that collection of data and add it to OSM. It doesn't matter if that is "factual" data it still can be copyrighted or at least the publisher claims it to be copyrighted until tested in the courts. We're not going to push those limits in OSM, if there's potential to be an issue we'll play it safe.

I think the question is then is taking selected data from http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/radar/info/nsw_info.shtml considered taking a collection of data (which we generally can't use) or considered a single data point (which we could use). I'm not sure, it's just that looking at the amount of data added in this changeset it certainly felt like mass-adding a whole collection of data.

I can see data about antenna polarisation, elevation, frequency, height, manufacturer, power rating, reference codes, start dates, tower type/construction and names.

I want to see this data in OSM, but I don't want to be testing the limits of copyright and risk the reputation of OSM and assurances we make about the data to downstream users.

The WMO site makes no mention of copyright, and therefore has full protection and isn't under an open license.

node/7373994785 is not T2 that was already mapped at node/6552009371 I've reverted that change.

Are you sure Mama Mulan which was mapped at node/5729379221/history is closed down? I believe it's still there...

node/5583351392/history is not "Pho Thin" that's already mapped at way/916580297 I've reverted it back to disused:shop

node/6715096557/history isn't "Colourful Yunnan", that's already mapped at way/916580298. I'll revert it back to disused:shop.

hi Kyle, looks like you changed https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/1090861305 to highway=cycleway, I just confirmed it's still signposted as "bicycles dismount" and I can't see anything to indicate it's a cycleway (I think if there is a cycleway that has a small section as bicycles dismount it could still be highway=cycleway + bicycle=dismount, but I'm not sure if that's the case here). What was the basis for changing it from footway to cycleway?

The way originally split from https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/90252662 when in 2010 it was created with highway=footway + lcn=yes.

I'm not sure which route it's meant to be part of but I think based on the bicycles dismount signage and no other indication it's a cycleway highway=footway is a better fit.

I'm of the view that highway=footway should be used for walking paths that have been built and highway=path for just a worn path from usage. In particular if it's signposted as a walking path it gives strength to being higher importance and therefore highway=footway compared with highway=path.

However I realise that other mappers generally use highway=path for any bushwalking track and highway=footway for essentially a non-bushwalking track.

Based on surface=metal and this being part of the major Coastal Walk track, I think highway=footway is better to raise the ranking compared to more minor walking tracks.

Is all this based on WMO Weather Radar Database data? What license is that data under? If we are mass adding their data and that data isn't sourced from a compatible license then we likely can't use it.

I think a better changeset comment would be "remove name from river area as it covers tributaries of the river with other names", I assume that's the reason for removing the name?

I think this change is okay for this reason, though I think it would be better to split up the area so we can have a named river area for "Georges River" then another named water area for "Salt Pan Creek" etc.

thanks, I also added informal=yes to mark it as informal.

This is a good start. For routing to work here you'll need to connect those footpaths across the road with a highway=footway + footway=crossing, ensuring there is a node where the footpath and road ways cross.

Thanks. I added a few extra tags to mark it specifically as a "multistory carpark under construction" rather than just a general building under construction.