No worries, actually it looks like the underground parts are already tagged location=underground. Is that not sufficient?

Sorry but I've reverted your change as it removed the car park as well as lost tags such as wikipedia/wikidata. I've expanded the mall a bit further into the car park as an approximation to ensure Kathmandu is part of the mall.

+1

I just migrated to the existing tags from the node to your new way, to ensure we only have one object for the school.

It looks like only part of this is covered, at least the end at Alexandra Canal appears open, are you right if we split this way, so that open part isn't tagged as a tunnel?

Could you elaborate on why this change is needed? These are bays so they need natural=bay tag to say what type of water body they are.

Could you elaborate on why this change is needed? These are bays so they need natural=bay tag to say what type of water body they are.

looks good

JOSM validation is not authoritative, mappers can overrule it to help express exactly what's on the ground more accuratly. For example a highway=footway might be tagged bicycle=designated + foot=designated to indicate it is a shared pedestrian/cycle path. both =designated tags indicate that both these modes are designated on this path and have equal use.

Could you clarify why those buildings around pyrmont were deleted?

In my opinion it's best to leave these in place and we should roll back this change.

highway=secondary is for major roads, this is just a minor service road so I've downgraded the classification.

lcn=yes is an easy way to tag a road as being part of a local bicycle route. That's better than using a description as it's interpreted by cycle maps. lcn=*

Next best thing is to actually add the way to a bicycle route relation.

Great so it sounds like everything is okay and nothing needs removing, thanks for confirming!

Hi it looks like you've used thelist as a background map, which is licensed CC BY. OSM requires a waiver to use CC BY data per https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ and per osm.wiki/Australian_data_catalogue the Tasmanian Government indicated in May 2017 and again in Dec 2018 that they did not wish to provide the waiver. So we're not able to incorporate their data into OSM. Could you please clarify which exact data you've sourced from thelist vs from GPS, bing and survey as we'll need to go through and redact that from OSM.

I always assumed that description for the cycleway=shoulder tag only applied when it wasn't already a marker lanes for bicycles. ie. cycleway=shoulder implied there is no bicycle marketing, and no cycleway, just that there is a shoulder there which conveniently works as a path for bicycles to use.

If we don't use cycleway=lane, then we must also use bicycle=designated on to the motorway to distinguish this signposted for bicycles shoulder from a regular shoulder not signposted for bicycles.

It's been discussed in the past, and at the time I think the consensus was that the legal definition doesn't influence tagging, what's on the ground does whether it meets the legal definition or not. That's my view, that so long as it looks like a cycle lane, is used as a cycle lane, matches the generally accepted definition of a cycle lane, then it's a cycleway=lane.

cycleway=shoulder doesn't provide differentiation between motorway shoulders and cycle lanes on local streets, you can have cycleway=shoulder on local streets and cycleway=lane on motorways, it's the highway tag which provides the differentiation cyclelanes on motorway and local streets.

Hey there, I noticed you changed parts of the M2 from cycleway=lane to cycleway=shoulder. Cycleway=lane is where there is a dedicated and signposted bicycle infrastructure (which there is on parts of the M2). Is there a good reason why that shouldn't be used here?

Just a heads up, these school buildings name should be the name of the building, not the name of the school.

Okay, got it. I also read boundary=maritime which says "maritime=yes to state that this is a maritime border, so it can be rendered correctly/different from land borders"

So I think based on this you're using the tag correctly here. I'll add it to a few aquatic reserves you missed ;)

Could you explain maritime=yes in this context? Is this according to maritime=* "Practically it is used for administrative boundaries that are located outside the coastline independent of their function and admin_level=*."

So any admin_boundary outside the coastline needs this tag?

Could you help clarify what way/580821895 is?

I've changed the geometry of Mollymook Beach Reserve to match the imagery instead of the LPI Base map. changeset/69455936