I think the original tagging of highway=service makes sense for the road to Hillsong as it matches highway=service and isn't a residential area.

I've changed this, adding the LPI Base map one as an alt_name and leaving the original in tact pending further evidence from the ground.

What's signposted could very well be different to what's on the LPI Basemap. You should only add that as an alt_name unless you've surveyed the sinage.

I you added the wrong source tag, this is NSW ;)

I'm not sure about this one, I have a suspicion that it's signposted as the fire trail from the highway. I've left a comment on the original entry for more information at changeset/22666062. The Mapillary imagery here doesn't help.

Hey, in this change you added Mirang Road Fire Trail from the highway way/285602681, an armchair mapper since changed this to Eckersley Road, can you confirm if Mirang Road Fire Trail does infact start from the highway or not?

way/639199871 is a duplicate of way/636736592 so I've deleted the duplicate.

It looks like the lookout is already mapped at way/208009693 with the formal name and includes "Mount Ainslie Lookout" as the alt_name which geocoding engines should pick up, so I've deleted the one you added as a duplicate.

already mapped in way/8016458 so I've deleted this duplicate entry.

The gardens are already mapped at way/20289807, and the building here is already mapped including that it's a visitor center, I've deleted this duplicate way.

Same thing here, already exists at relation/1198 so I've deleted the duplicate way you added.

This feature was already mapped in way/30160608, I couldn't see any differences with what's there so I've deleted the duplicated way.

Hi, we try to avoid having multiple ways with the exact same nodes sitting on top of each other. In the iD editor I don't know how you can select the different features, in JOSM you can middle mouse click to see them. In this case I deleted way/639203742 as it's the same as way/213581450

Hi, since the building already existing at way/336023262 and it looks like these are different places within the building I've made them nodes sitting in the building in https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/64512163/

I don't know if you saw but the National Arboretum Canberra is tagged as covering the whole area in relation/7177807 and the building is tagged at way/218846977 unfortunately I'm not sure of a good way to tag this as the "main building"...

PS. The ACTmapi Imagery is broken in the iD editor due to changes in the service, it still works in the desktop JOSM editor though.

Hi. Very glad to see you getting involved in editing OSM. I don't want to discourage any editing, and I don't have the local knowledge here, but I still had some comments about this change.

bicycle=yes is an access restriction access=*. in this case it was saying that bicycles are permitted on this track. Does this track really only permit "mountain" bikes but forbids other kinds of bicycles?

If all kinds of bicycles are allowed it should be tagged bicycle=yes, or if bicycles are specifically directed to use this path, then bicycle=designated.

The surface tag (it's tagged as asphalt) is very helpful to routing engines, as it can keep non-mountain bikers on paved paths.

Further to this, I recommend using the mtb:scale tag to mark it as a mountain biking track mtb:scale=*

Or would that not accurately describe what's on the ground?

Looks good to me. Just keep in mind that motor_vehicle=no is already implied by highway=footway so it's not necessary. Excess tags can make it harder for editors as it increases complexity, so it's usually best to only add those implied tags in when it needs to be made clear.

Looks good to me.

maxspeed is good, but did you mean to shorten the name? https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/4375369