could you please provide further information about why the field is no longer there? if you provide this in the changeset comment it helps other mappers understand why the changes were made, without this justification and due to the dragged node I've reverted this changeset.

it can also be helpful to map out what's there instead (if the field is no longer there).

I've reverted this as the only change was to drag the node, going by your changeset comment it seems like you knew something went wrong, why did you proceed to upload it then?

your changes resulted in a number of overlaping ways, so I've cleaned this up, however I'm not sure about the tags for each of the resulting segments.

Unless I'm mistaken, the data extracted for the quest only records these as "tower" so it doesn't specify if it's a chimney or a communications tower, many of the other data points are for chimneys so I think it's very likely this one is for the chimney.

On the Esri imagery the shadows cast to the west, so if there was a comms tower there you'd expect to see a shadow but there's none, only the chimney.

On Bing to me it just looks like some stockpiled equipment on the ground.

Either way if in doubt probably best to not map it and leave a note or fixme.

same comment as changeset/169898102

In this case I believe it would be best to mark the comms tower as a node, and per the wiki this is likely to be man_made=mast not man_made=tower.

industrial=communication is considered a sub-tag of landuse=industrial, it further specifies the type of industrial landuse, so you need landuse=industrial as well.

Unless the tower footprint has significant area, I think it's best to map the tower as a node. The area you've traced out here should be a landuse=industrial and potentially with industrial=communication.

The whole area isn't a building so shouldn't have building=yes, there does appear to be something within the site, it might be a building or it might be industrial equipment, but if you wanted you could trace it as building=yes or building=service.

I can't see any comms tower here on Bing or DCS imagery, I believe the Base map tower here is the chimney just to the SW of the node, it's most visible on the Esri imagery.

also for bridge:name at least I thought it could be kept on the highway.

I read bridge:name=* which while it says it's prefered to use man_made=bridge + name it doesn't directly say that it shouldn't/can't co-exist with bridge:name so I'm not sure, I just thought that perhaps it's a good idea to retain it rather than delete it.

I checked the 3 main routing engines but none appear to use bridge:name.

way/172868419 we should leave the bridge tags on the way, it's helpful for routing engines to also announce the bridge name as part of the route without needing to process the bridge area and apply those tags to the way.

My understanding from the Royal National Park is that if you're driving straight through from Loftus to Otford via Audley and don't stop you don't need to buy a national park pass, however in that case the road is considered a public road excluded from the park. I thought the same applied to all other parks, so driving through Riverside Drive here without stopping doesn't need a pass, but I'm not sure... The national parks website seems to indicate that if your vehicle enters the park you need a pass.

node/6635352711/history and some others were just deleted, but I don't know enough about train signalling to know if it should have been...

I've added some basic documentation about the tag at railway:cbtc=* since none existed and the tag is in use, but it would be good if any further information about what the tag means or how it could be applied could be added to the wiki.

regarding way/962492246 I don't think there's any signage present indicating it's a shared path.

On my 2018 imagery https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=927023981175171 there's nothing visible, but it could have changed recently, I'll make a note to double check, but the council has a few paths around there that I think were intended to be shared path but they never installed any signage or painted any bicycle symbols... in which case they are only shared paths on paper not in on the ground. I'll make a note to check again.

I've removed all the superfluous psv=yes tags added to the public roads where it's already implied and we generally don't specify =yes for each mode. I discussed this briefly on the OSM World Discord #oceania channel and there was consensus there.

The psv=yes on highway=busway, per imagery indicating it's Taxi/Bus Only, I updated to psv=designated to reflect the road access.

hi you've added psv=yes to the train line here which isn't quite right so I've removed it.

hi you've added `psv:lanes`=* to the route relation, that tag is only applicable to the actual road ways with highway=* where you want to specify bus lanes. I've removed it from the relation but you may want to correctly add it to the road segment again.

most highway=* values are already assumed to be public transport accessible by default, therefore it's not necessary to tag this.

See osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Worldwide

In my view we don't want to be tagging every single road as hgv=yes, psv=yes, bicycle=yes, etc. that's just noise.

Where there are bus lanes we should be indicating that with the relevant tagging, or where it could be ambiguous like highway=pedestrian we should specify or where there's signage like no access, busses excepted we should tag that but otherwise for regular roads we shouldn't usually tag psv=yes.

FYI I've changed way/176608577/history to Mona Vale Road. My reasoning is the street signage here indicates it's Mona Vale Road, with "To Kanangra Road" implying that Kanangra Road is further along. This is likely done my the council due to the houses along here being addresses to Mona Vale Road, however DCS NSW data still shows it as "Kanangra Avenue" for the whole section, it's just this doesn't match any council signage installed.

Thanks. This is visible on the Esri World Imagery (you can change the background imagery in the editor). I've made some minor tweaks, including adding the no-u-turn restrictions, adding the turn around roads on the side roads, and using the turn:lanes tagging over running the _link road for the length of the turn lane per best practice.