I've reverted this change, but if you wanted to re-try on the correct way or address my comments so we can move forward.

Thanks!

From what I can see Isaac Regional boundary is mostly correct now? But I could see that Barcaldine Regional had a number of discrepancies between the latest Geoscape Admin Boundaries and what we had in OSM, it looks like the suburb/localities boundaries also shifted together with the LGA boundaries therefore I've updated the boundaries of Barcaldine.

I find it hard to believe and unlikely that these tracks have never existed, they were added my a longstanding mapper reported via survey, it's possible they are more overgrown and less visible now but it's only been 4 years since they were re-surveyed and seems unlikely the area would have completely revegetated to the point that they don't exist anymore, and even if it had it could still be mapped as `was:highway=path`.

I agree with @pitscheplatsch that around osm.org/edit#map=21/-34.4159796/150.8134143 there does seem to be some kind of trail present.

this isn't quite right, you've added this to the whole wood area including the Lane Cove National Park relation/3651359

Did you mean to add this no one of the relation inners instead? like way/358798507 or way/435725410 ?

FYI
1. osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property
2. osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

If the paths are visible on the ground it's best to use some combination of abandoned:highway=path or demolished:highway=path or razed:highway=path or was:highway=path along with access=no (no legal access) after many more years if the area has no traces left then we could delete the ways.

Hi are you making these edits on behalf of Isaac Regional Council? We need to be careful when incorporating copyrighted materials into OSM to ensure it can be licensed under OSM's license.

Generally we need a waiver letter to incorporate existing CC BY licensed open data. In this case the council doesn't utilise an open license per https://www.isaac.qld.gov.au/Site-Footer/Copyright so the only way we can use this material from council is if you're acting the the authority of the council and agreeing to release this data per the OSM contributor terms and license (which is less restrictive than the councils standard copyright terms).

the change looks okay, just way/1414558740 should be highway=service + service=driveway rather than unclassified which is generally for a public road rather than a driveway leading to a house.

Not sure what you mean by "256^2 block of terrain data" though....

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