*track

I've added that part back in as a driveway

I've added that part back in but as a driveway

Thanks! It looks like the construction=trunk was the issue.

It's likely the same business as node/11053177237 so I migrated some tags across and deleted this one.

I moved node/7973343649 to the centre of the reservoir where it appears to be on the imagery

> Just to check - does adding in a couple of start_date's manually make the import harder?

Nope. What I was thinking was match based on being within X meters and the ref matches, then add start_date if not existing already (if already exists then ignore it).

After I saw your changesets, I made a few state wide changesets which included adding the ref to these site relations based on the name.

it looks like some unrelated features were accidentally moved, it's quite common for this to happen unfortunately. trying to pan the map ends up dragging and moving features.

I've reverted those changes, but left the events venue feature you added.

Per building:flats=*

`building:flats` is the count of flats/units in the building so in this case it should be 4 not 4321.

`addr:flats` is for the range of flat/unit numbers at the address so it should be 1-4.

I've fixed this here and merged the lone address node for the building into the building way which already had the same address tagged.

only via the correspondence at changeset/169271037

If a track in a national park has been "closed", and that's indicated I think access=no should apply. access=private makes more sense for something like a driveway that the land owner uses but no one else is permitted to use it. So access=no is stronger, it says no one is allowed to use it. This lines up with how they are documented at access=*

Sorry I have no idea about what Alltrails does, but it's up to them how they choose to interpret the tags.

In any case, the lack of a highway=* tag would mean most downstream maps won't display it at all. I suggested to apply abandoned:highway=* instead of having no highway tag at all, so some data consumers who want to specifically check for closed and non-active tracks can still find it.

Mapping these kinds of features is still contentious in OSM and even the current guidance we put together at osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Legal_Access isn't universally supported so it's something that can evolve further, but I feel this is a good balance.

Rather than deleting the highway=* tag I suggest we use the lifecycle prefix osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix#Stages_of_decay per the guidance at osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Paths

For example disused:highway=path or abandoned:highway=path or demolished:highway=path or destroyed:highway=path depending on the state of the unsanctioned and illegally constructed mountain bike tracks.

This is incredibly overgrown, at least trail_visibility=bad/horrible, potentially even abandoned:highway=path based on the lack of it being a clear path.

The western end is a bit clearer, but just south of Yanco Close Reserve I lost the track completely.

Personally I like to use path=mtb to specify it as a Mountain Bike Track.

we should probably just import the rest of them

I've previously worked on bringing in missing traffic lights in @aharvey/diary/393663 but now we have a lot of traffic lights mapped with a ref so linking these together to add start_date should be straight forward.

indeed, on the Esri World Imagery you can see there are houses here now.

discussion ongoing at changeset/168924094

On the DCS NSW Topographic map the dashed line only goes on the short section from Heathcote until it meets way/1377326848 where it then stops.

The DCS NSW Base Map doesn't show any track/trail here, only much closer to the railway line it shows a railway maintenance track.

The park Plan of Management document at https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/royal-heathcote-national-parks-garawarra-plan-of-management-220657.pdf does include a black dashed line for management trail near here, but it follows the railway line and I believe this represents the railway maintenance track we have mapped at way/96051429 and not this "Roman Trail" way which aligns with the Strava heatmap.

I checked back against the 1955, 1972, 1975, 1980, 1983, 1984, 2004, 2005 historical imagery and none show a visible management trail along this alignment at any point, so it's not like this used to be a management trail which over time has converted into a path.

Based on all this I find it highly unlikely this is a sanctioned walking track at all, and certainly unlikely to be a sanctioned mountain biking track.

That said, I do advocate mapping based on what's on the ground and I don't have any on the ground knowledge here, but it seems more likely to be an informal/unsanctioned mountain biking track.

Using highway=cycleway for a technical mountain biking track is controversial, and usually reserved for non-technical cycling paths. Personally I prefer highway=path + path=mtb.

Since way/1414673606 is a re-creation of the original way at way/171488451 I've deleted way/1414673606 and restored the original one.

To try and make it easier for us mappers I suggest we don't delete the way but rather work on the appropriate tags.

Further discussion is prefer over edit warring.

the deleted way way/171488451/history was recreated again at way/1414673606/history

In order to prevent the way being deleted then re-added and to make it easier to manage, I've restored way/171488451/history

I suggest we leave the way in OSM as it's clear from Strava heatmap that something exists on the ground and it's being use.

We should instead work to improve the access tags and consider if it should be a lifecycle prefixed path like abandoned:highway=path or left as highway=path.

osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Legal_Access

hi why was the "Kangaroo Creek Track" name removed?