Removing way/9922132/history was probably good since it's also mapped way/499234807.

But without justification for removing all those POIs and no response here in 17 days, I'm going to revert this. If there features really aren't there anymore please let us know.

I'm not sure about UNSW as a neighbourhood, UNSW is a university area and it's already tagged as a university. So I'm tempted to remove node/1822379544

I wonder if this was entered by the business or by a 3rd party SEO business.

Either way please these on how to tag accepted payments and opening hours:
payment=*
opening_hours=*

as the way you've entered them isn't machine readable.

"addr: Suite" should be "addr:unit"

"+61- 04 1155 7622" should be "+61 411 557 622"

It looks like you've deleted some things like the building and bunkers which I suspect are still present on th ground and hence shouldn't be deleted, eg way/211410476/history and node/2214182659/history

I would suggest abandoned:building=bunker + ruins=yes. See way/482816142. To retain the history, and give proper credit to the original author you should undelete the original features.

I agree that each of these nodes shouldn't have it's own tourism=museum and name= Bare Island Fort, but you could just remove these tags without deleting the objects.

Are you sure that node/1197909191/history is no longer present on the ground?

I see you changed way/491089771 from highway=construction to residential. Based on your source tag, it doesn't look like a ground survey, did you?

Unless you did a ground survey I think you should leave it as I tagged it.

@Spookylad, it doesn't seem the license of your source is compatible. Unless you can point us to further details about the license, could you please revert these changes and instead add data from ground survey or other sources which can be used in OSM.

It seems you added a bunch of duplicates here? eg. you added way/386754319 but it already exists at way/199009076.

Could you fix these up by deleting your copy in favour of the existing. If you want to make improvements then you can edit the existing object.

Your change also caused a self intersection with way/475592320

I see you've moved some features away from being imagery aligned to being aligned to the topo map.

Honestly I'm not sure which is more correct here, but some part of my GPS trace seem to line up with the imagery more than the topo map.

I compared my GPS trace of the area @aharvey/traces/2358807 which is close to yours @N%20Fischer/traces/2393052.

Thanks for noting this, it looks like it's happened as a result of changeset/47860192 I'll move the discussion over there.

Thanks, please feel free to add the name to this part then if you've confirmed it on the ground.

Okay, but you can't copy from Google Maps or Google Street View.

Feel free to add the name from ground survey or from the LPI Base Map (different background map option in the iD editor)

The LPI Base Map has a name for this one, is it signposted on the ground?

The LPI Base Map has this named "Charles Mance Reserve", is it signposted as "Memorial"?

The running track and the roads should only share nodes where they cross. Given we have high resolution imagery here could you retrace this with a more accurate location and avoid having it run down the middle of the road? (assuming the track I can see in the imagery is what you're mapping)

The leisure=track tag is more for an athletics field rack track, if it's just a jogging path for leisure, do you think highway=footway, sport=running is better?

Thanks for adding this, I've unglued the building from the roads, created entrance nodes to mark out exactly where the entrances are and what they are for. Please note that 24hrs isn't a supported value for opening_hours, see osm.wiki/wiki/opening_hours. Is it "24/7"? I've also removed the node per osm.wiki/Good_practice#One_feature.2C_one_OSM_element

Hi,

Thanks for adding this.

A pointer for next time, a building generally shouldn't share nodes with the street it faces, as roads are center lines and buildings are for the footprint of the building only.

I've fixed this up in changeset/47644250

What were you trying to do with the parking lot here?

It looks like a multi story parking lot but I don't understand what your tags mean. highway=path but foot=no? parking=underground but no amenity=parking? service=spur? All combined on the same way?

What are you trying to map here?

You've also added maxspeed=40 to pedestrian footways which have no maxspeed signs from ground survey. I've fixed up one of them.

Hey there, this track is present. I physically surveyed it. If something exists on the ground then it's fair game to be in OSM. Regardless of if it's dangerous or not. You can read up on two of the tags which I'd already included on this track sac_scale=*#Values and trail_visibility=*#Values. Even if access was blocked or discouraged by NPWS it wouldn't warrant deleting the path, instead access=* could be set to no or discouraged.

I've reinstated this deletion, but left the removal of the coast walk name from the section from burning palms to garawarra.