What's this "Splash Zone" node/361500298 ? Where does did this name come from?

not sure how you determined that way/33776118 is paved, but it's not based on my recent survey, so I've changed it back to unpaved.

Hey Gareth, When I walked this 2 years ago there was a path along side the creek, but pretty overgrown so I made sure it was mapped as highway=path + trail_visibility=horrible (so people know only walk here if you're comfortable navigating in the bush where the path is easily lost with no guideposts or other track markers).

Has the path overgrown so much now that there's no longer a path at all?

What do you mean by a "formal" track?

It's more to indicate the lifecycle of the school, that there are building a new school (technically a campus of an existing school, but it's still school area "under construction" https://www.schoolinfrastructure.nsw.gov.au/projects/c/cammeraygal-high-school-senior-campus.html

Once it's open then we can just remove the lifecycle prefix.

The building is undergoing renovation, which I still think is construction, so you could tag the building that way in addition to this school area if you like.

Are these ways necessary to run the whole length of the platform?

Yep, it's simply because no one has mapped these stations down to that level so far, so glad that you're helping out with this so we can improve the level of detail.

Ideally the routing engines would just route across the platform area, but until then footways on the platform, ideally connecting to the edge of the platform like way/444889956 is the best solution in my opinion.

Many places though it's impossible to map remotely, and will need a visit to the station to conform the layout so they can be mapped more accurately taking the pedestrian network down to each platform.

Yes and I see you just added a footway to the west side of the platform in https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/65657528/ which fixes the issue of it going all the way around the platform. I think that's the best solution, with a balance between something workable for routing engines and representing the real world. Is there a problem using this approach for other stations where steps or a ramp lead onto the platform?

This looks fine to me osm.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=-33.82179%2C151.19399%3B-33.82206%2C151.19529 by snapping the footway to the edge of the platform area, a routing engine which can't route across areas should just follow the platform outline.

The better solution is change your start point to be where the footway meets the platform.

For example way/444889956 is also viable, it says you can walk from the bottom of the steps to the edge of the platform (which you can) and allows the routing network to connect the platform to the road/footway network. Would that work as a workaround?

I disagree with the JOSM warnings for source:geometry on a node. I'm using it to document the source for geometry of the point, in the same ways as is done for the geometry of a way. I think using different tags like source:geometry source:location just based on node vs way adds unnecessary complexity.

This is an issue in the routing engine, not in the OSM data, but I understand we sometimes need to use workarounds until the software support catches up. It's good practice to have one feature, one OSM object osm.wiki/Good_practice#One_feature.2C_one_OSM_element this means if there is one platform, then we only have one OSM object.

If I want to count how many platform there are in a given station, I should be able to just count how many OSM objects there are.

Ideally every platform would have a footway or steps leading either inside it or snapped to the edge of it. Could you just detect any routing requests from inside a platform snap to the nearest footway on within the platform area?

If the railway platform is already mapped as an area, is there any reason to duplicate this with a linear way down the middle?

I think we need to decide if it's worth continuing from this and cleaning it up, or revert it all and start again.

Hi Sean,

Check out osm.wiki/Indoor for details on how to tag indoor features, as a lot of these features are missing the required tags to give them meaning.

the level tag level=* is a very useful combination so that the result is viable in things like OpenLevelUp, eg https://openlevelup.net/?l=-1#19/-33.79724/151.18117

It would be better to go through the JOSM validator warnings which popup before uploading, it can fix things like duplicated nodes, warn you about untagged ways and other errors.

Are you absolutely sure all the features you deleted are gone now?

Also it's better to keep existing objects like https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/73149021 why was that deleted?

This is a pretty big change, and I can see you've tried to ensure the existing mapped shops like Big W, Woolworths. Maybe if you're going to do more, post the osm file first so we can review the import before it happens, which is best practice per osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines

The other issue is you've now mapped 3 parks, based on what looks like the cadastre/legal parcels.

It's good practice to map what's on the ground osm.wiki/Good_practice#Map_what.27s_on_the_ground , and on the ground there is just one park, can we change this back?

Hey Warin, In this changeset you deleted way/608927871 as "delete cycleway - not there". How do you know it's not there? It was only added one month before you deleted it, so it's very recent. It shows up on both the recent NSW LPI Imagery and the more recent photo I took https://www.flickr.com/photos/136319147@N08/45324895234/.

I've reinstated that deleted way.

looks good to me

https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/183817729

There is a plaque at the diversion between the lookout and boardwalk with a different name, so I've changed the name you added to the boardwalk based on that.

It looks like you accidentally moved gate 55 in this changeset. https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/node/1099313596 I've moved it back, but next time take care when dragging the map in the iD editor as its very easy to move nodes when you're trying to pan the map.