+1 if these addresses aren't surveable on the ground, then we don't need them in OSM.

Are you saying that only buses can't uturn here but other vehicles can? I think the restriction shouldn't be specific to buses. In NSW it's illegal to uturn at traffic lights unless signposted as allowed.

no reply, reverted.

no reply, reverted.

Hi, regarding your cycleway edits here, like way/338444684, thanks for the contribution. I just had some questions.

1. What's your source for maxspeed and maxspeed:advisory on the cycleway? I couldn't see any signage or otherwise limiting the speed, but I only surveyed some sections.

2. I don't think passing_places applies to the cycleway. What were you trying to define by using it?

3. change=yes doesn't make sense if there is only one lane in either direction.

4. cycleway=shared according to the wiki is not recommended anymore, in favour of simply segregated=yes/no

although not wrong to add Shell Beach as a multipolygon, it may be simpler to just have that small section of way overlapping to keep it as a simple closed way.

Thank you.

Hey I noticed you deleted the barrier I just added at https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/node/6505084855.

I surveyed this Sunday and the block was there, did you notice it was removed in the last two days?

I noticed in this changeset you've removed access=no from the T-Way. I've reverted that change since we need access=no to say no one can access it, except bus (bus=designated). Otherwise routers will try to take private vehicles through it.

No worries, thanks for confirming! I'll make further changes then. Maybe if you had split an existing way then that could explain the lost history, and why it is showing you as the initial creator of this data, sorry about the confusion.

Thanks for fixing your changeset comment here, it was helpful for me to understand where this change came from.

Hi for way/655201703/,
1. Where did you get the maxspeed=50 from? I wouldn't have though the maxspeed from the road actually applies to the cycleway as well.
2. Where did you get the maxspeed:advisory=30 from? I couldn't find this signposted anywhere.
3. I'll change the surface from asphalt to concrete, as it appears to be concrete.
4. I couldn't find any passing places, what's your reason for the tag passing_places=*
5. cycleway=shared, the wiki explains this tag as being obsolete now in favour of segregated, per Its use with cycleways is now considered obsolete: purpose-built cycleways are assumed to be shared.

I've made some changes but will await some feedback from you before making further changes.

Hey I noticed you just deleted the parking area at way/677568464 I'm reinstating that as I verified yesterday it's still on the ground, and am also uploading Mapillary imagery. I was in the process of fixing it to be surface, but I got many conflicts in JOSM from your changeset (my fault for leaving it open too long), so will redo afresh.

Hi, what were you needing help with? It looks like you made some paths here, but then deleted them?

oh sorry you fixed it in this changeset! Thank you.

It looks like you've dragged the node too far... changeset/70432858 can you fix it?

you can add lcn=yes on the way if it's part of a signposted bicycle route.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Piper St" shows up on the map?

I checked in more detail and those deleted buildings do appear to be duplicates, so deleting those was a good change. eg. https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/615453803 and https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/615449961

I still think having bicycle=designated + foot=designated on a highway=cycleway/footway is useful, as it makes it clear that both modes are designated, it's also extra redundancy that if the way is changed from cycleway to footway or vice versa the fact that both modes are designated remains.

No worries at all. I hope I haven't discouraged you from editing more.

I think the error was due to the steps here way/305800760 needed to be tagged as a bridge going over the canal, I've made that change so the editor doesn't complain any more.

I've asked the Data Working Group to look into this, since your source nearmap.com is a commercial imagery supplier and does not (since the OSM license change) make their imagery available to OSM for tracing. To me it's not clear from their TOS if you as a customer of Nearmap can derive information from their imagery and 100% own it free from any IP restrictions, which is why I've asked DWG for advise.

Is this edit part of an organised or directed mapping activity per https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines ?