hi what is this "cycleway" you've added in way/1414673606 ?

Is there an unsanctioned mountain bike track there?

hi apologies and thanks for contributing but I've deleted way/1328475718 and way/1328475717.

These had been mapped many years ago in way/32173325/history and way/457637430/history however unfortuantly another mapped decided to delete these in Jan 2024, so when you added yours you didn't see these pre-existing ones, however to retain the original history we've restored the original ways.

This changeset has been reverted by changeset/169058336

This changeset has been reverted in changeset/169058336

This changeset has been reverted in changeset/169058336

this changeset has been reverted in changeset/169058336

this changeset has been reverted in changeset/169058336

this change has been reverted in changeset/169058336

This has been reverted in changeset/169058336

These stream pools exist, they aren't errors.

Thanks for spotting and fixing this!

generally highway=trunk assumes bicycle=yes by default, at least per osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions however there's no harm is explicitly specifying this with bicycle=yes.

Looks good. I fixed up a tag issue, in iD the tags input doesn't take the = sign, unless you change the tags input to text. I also fixed a typo in the value and added the operator:wikidata tag.

https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/83655247

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....