Nope, I haven't fixed it. I did pass a footway through the street, so I did make an edit after you, but didn't touch the tags. Are you right to correct?

Hey did you mean to remove the highway=tertiary or the lcn=yes? Because your comment indicates the latter but you actually did the former.

Does the road still physically exist? Would it be better to tag it as access=no and place a barrier= node?

Aren't the NSW Government Topo Maps Copyright All Rights Reserved? I know the paper ones I have are and it appears the online ones at http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/arcgis/rest/services/sixmaps/LPITopoMap/MapServer are too.

Were you able to get these under a license compatible with deriving information for OSM?

Just a question, when you said your source was Topo? What specifically was this source?

In this changeset you've added the name "Platform 2&3" to the railway landuse area covering the whole station. What were you intending to do here? Can you fix this?

It looks like this changset deleted the intersection http://osmhv.openstreetmap.de/changeset.jsp?id=29372749 so I've reverted it in changeset/30300449

What were you trying to do in this changeset? Remove the cycleway=share_busway from Elizabeth Street?

Could you please explain the reasoning for adding these? Is it for a specific router?

There are some issues with these, for example the one you added at Heathcote station is wrong because there is no path running along the way you added.

According to osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_use_name_tag_to_describe_things it is good practice not to abuse the name tag in this way, and osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_for_the_renderer The default OSM rendering is not the only user of OSM data.

Why is this named footbridge? Is there actually a sign labelling it? It seems to me like foot=yes + bridge=yes + highway=path is enough to indicated it is a footbridge.

Regarding way way/256790444 the name tag is reserved for just the name, ie. Dunns Leap Track. The extra information although on the sign isn't part of the way's name so shouldn't be in the tag value. This information can go in a description tag, however, it is best to tag the reason why it is experience walkers only using sac_scale, or trail_visibility, etc.

Regarding way/302242009 [way/302242009] the name tag is used to tag the names of things [osm.wiki/Name] not provide a description or access restrictions, please use that tag instead [description=*]

When you tried to remove the turn restrictions for

relation/2766091
relation/3746660

it appears you just removed the tags from the relation, leaving a relation with no tags but still containing the members. To remove the turn restriction, just delete the relation, not the tags on it.

In JOSM when you have the edit relation window open use the trash icon at the top rather the ones on the left which just delete the tags.

I've fixed up this instance. Cheers.

In this changeset you changed a pipeline to a road. I won't revert it because you made another change at the same time, but I will fix this mistake.

Oops that's way/86610951

For way/866109501, I wouldn't class it is trail_visibility=bad (Path sometimes invisible, route partly pathless), as I found markers frequently along the trail, which sometimes had to be searched for which according to the wiki is trail_visibility=good (Next marker always visible, but sometimes has to be searched for) or maybe intermediate?

I've updated this based on the name tag being just a description already provided by water=pond.

I meant I couldn't find a sign that named the it "Pond", I agree that the water does exist, it's just the name is wrong. See osm.wiki/Name specifically the example of "closed pub (due for demolition): do not describe the object in lieu of a name."

I was going to wipe the name tag entirely but was just asking in case there was evidence to support that the water had a name "Pond".

Why is way/314796230 named Pond? I couldn't find any sign or otherwise on the ground to support this. Shouldn't it just be water=pond without a name tag?

Hi,

When you split the Lane Cove River into two multipolygons... they are still the same river, just with a weir in it, shouldn't it all be part of the single multipolygon?