Thank you @SK53 for being on top of this! I agree, the maps referenced are Copyright, and don't even appear to be under an open license, let alone with the extra conditions OSM requires.

It shouldn't display like that though https://github.com/osmlab/osm-deep-history/issues/19.

Either way the data in the description means nothing so we should remove it. I am wondering where this data was originally imported from though, since we can't use the CC BY license tasLIST data I suspect it might have come from.

Thanks @tonyf1, the user account is very blatantly spam.

why was railway=station removed? I don't see any other railway=station for Central that existed at the time. https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/xW0

Someone since created node/5124591624 but I'm tempted to delete that and put it on way/34891023 per railway=station. Renaming it to simply "Central" not "Sydney Central" on the node.

I've reverted this for consistency with the naming of all other train/light rail stations.

The fact that it is a light rail station is implied by the fact that it's on railway=tram

Wardell Road is kind of broken now with the oneway next to the twoway segments.

We should try to avoid dual carriage ways like this, it just adds unnecessary complexity for what gain?

Looks like that goes back to older versions of the way https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/238028224

Did you see node/434350593 ? Looks like the train station already exists in OSM.

Echoing what @Warin61 said, great start here, but these look like they should just be a single way down the road centre line (not a oneway way for each lane).

I agree with @mueschel that we should be using the `ref` key ref=* for external references. So ref:capad or something like that.

The description of the AUTHORITY field sounds like it should go into the OSM operator tag operator=*

Per the CAPAD waiver, we don't need to provide attribution on the object level it's covered by the generic attribution statement at osm.wiki/Contributors#Department_of_the_Environment_and_Energy

ie.

operator=Western Australian Department of Parks and Wildlife
ref=WA31362

Your edit looks good, thanks.

Just noting this isn't necessarily oneway=yes, since there are no white arrows on the ground or signage explicitly for oneway, plus there are >>> signs for the downward direction.

That said it's not clear to me what "no through road" means here, so I'm okay with the oneway tag.

I couldn't find the sign at http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/documents/business-industry/partners-and-suppliers/guidelines/complementary-traffic-material/tsdsect10v12-i.pdf

looks good to me, you've split rocky point road at the intersection so you can correctly add the new restriction.

what does name "site" mean here?

no idea how that street turn into three, I've tried to clean it up while still keeping the original road for history, admittedly i split it up a fair bit to add turn lanes. @xujiayi_1256 sorry if some of your turn restrictions got lost, I tried to avoid but could you double check it looks okay now?

road name types shouldn't be abbreviated
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/57395207

Hi, welcome to OSM and thanks for your contribution!

The school already existed at relation/2016120, and the short road segment you added was overlapping an existing road so I've deleted these two. The "town houses" either need to be mapped out as individual buildings, or if you're mapping the whole area, do it using landuse=residential (I've fixed it by doing this). I've also changed over the pier to man_made=pier. Cheers.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/57162222

I added the acupuncture tag according to healthcare=*#Specialities_for_healthcare.3Dalternative

ps. See name=* there are a few different name tags. loc_name would be good for a name just used by locals colloquially. That said, I don't have a problem with a commonly used name (but just not official) being used as the "name".

Agreed with @TheSwavu. See the DNRM thread at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2018-March/thread.html.

It's unfortunate but I see no other option than to revert these unless you can pull out the DNRM derived data?