I've fixed 1, 2 and 3. I've left 4 since I checked the historical 1982 imagery which shows it's possible there was once a driveway there, but still in general "not:" would be better when just trying to indicate this to other mappers.

4. way/1445927361/history "abandoned:" is best suited where there's evidence that it was once a driveway which is now no longer used. If you simply want to make it clear to future mappers that this is no a driveway since they might assume that from the lot boundaries, then best to use the "not:" prefix.

3. You've changed the geometry of the driveway, in a way that no longer matches the aerial imagery, you've moved it to run through trees and garages, apparently based on the Land Parcels alone.

2. I'm not sure how you can tell the surface=paved, at least for me looking at the imagery it's not clear and there's no street level imagery here. I think best to leave off the surface until it can be surveyed on the ground.

I see you added a new address for 11 Burrendong Pl at node/13286395669/history but it already exists at node/7066252214.

I don't believe we should duplicate it as that leads to ambiguity and it's best to place it at the residence. The routing engine can resolve which street it's accessed from based on the mapped driveway.

Do you think you can group similar changes together, doing one change per changeset makes reviewing much harder, takes longer to inspect changes, longer to sort through the changeset feed.

changeset/172435051 this, could you comment on that changeset with any further information?

but does it exist on the ground? In your previous edit you set access=private but now deleted?

https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/1424686327

if it's non-existent, fine to delete, but if it exists but not accessible then access=private is the way to go.

osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

for next time, leave off the "kmh" if it's km/h, that's assumed by default.

you seem to be quiet on top of construction changes, could you check the change at changeset/172465660 ?

are you sure about that? It was only just changed to construction back in May and the new temporary onramp added way/1423785982/history.

Are you sure these are more recent changes than those made a years ago?

Also way/1106729756 connects to the tunnel, which is still marked as underconstruction so you've just opened the onramp leading into a dead-end once you reach the tunnel. I think you might be mistaken?

hi, all your changesets have now been reverted. You're changes appear to be vandalising the map. Please discuss anything you think was mapped correctly.

reverted

I've reverted and repaired this changeset.

I've reverted this change as it added a British power operator to a VIC power pole.

I'm not sure what node/3073194802/history was about so I've reverted this changeset.

This looks like a driveway rather than unclassified road.

Deleted highway=path way/208005959 exists on the GPS traces layer and at least at some point has existed. I suspect it'll still there in some form, but perhaps needs informal=yes and updates to trail_visibility? What's it like on the ground now? When did you last survey here?

Deleted Lookout node/2183037852 does exist https://flickr.com/photos/136319147@N08/23208429036

The other tracks you haven't provided any justification for why you're deleting them, the current situation, when you surveyed etc. beyond just "Fixed" as such I'll revert these deletions.

If the tracks are just not official tracks, mark them as informal=yes.

If they are overgrown use trail_visibility=bad/horrible

If there are signs saying no access use access=no

If the tracks are not used anymore and reclaimed by the bush, use a lifecycle prefix.

Please reply back with further information.

I'll restore this under the lifecycle tagging per osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Legal_Access

It's clear from other mappers that there was once something here, are you saying it's completely grown over now with no evidence of a path anymore? When did you last survey/check this?

we don't use addr:city it doesn't form part of the address. We use addr:suburb which would be Ironbark but we don't generally tag addr:suburb or addr:postcode since these are all derived from the admin boundary relation/3079197#map=17/-36.755106/144.263760