Feel free to also use the tag segregated=no (segregated=*) to indicate that the pedestrians and cyclists share the same lane.

Hey there,

We are unable to use any data published from the source you quoted since their Copyright statement is not compatible with OSM.

"Copyright of the material on this site is vested in the Crown in right of Transport for NSW, subject to the Copyright Act 1968 (link is external).

This material is protected by copyright but may be reproduced without formal permission or charge for personal, in-house or non-commercial use.

No part may be reproduced or reused for any commercial purposes whatsoever without written permission of:"

Even without that, these station locations came from a survey of the above ground construction works, the graphic on their website might not be that accurate, I think we should wait until construction works continue and we get a better picture, or get some open data from Transport which confirms with more accuracy.

Reverting ...these features are already mapped in OSM.

Re fibre;copper, it's okay as what you had wasn't wrong, just not complete. If you haven't already I'll update it to include copper.

I think it depends, for example if you look up a shop website and find the address listed there and add that, then it's okay.

If you have a database of all exchanges in NSW and systematically copy across all the data, then that's not okay, see osm.wiki/Copyright

If you've systematically copied across from another database, and that database isn't released to the public domain or a suitable open license, then best leave them out.

also the address was already present, so is source:addr=tpg;accc fair?

I think you need to be careful copying addresses from other databases, that's generally not allowed.

Shouldn't this be telecom:medium=fibre;copper? according to telecom:medium=* this is the medium used by subscribers. This exchange is still servicing ADSL and telephone over copper lines.

I've reverted your changes for a second time now, please see changeset/71181899

I probably won't call this a roundabout... just a road which happens to be round.

I've reverted this change in changeset/71183048 as it does not match more recent on the ground and mapillary observations.

Please before you map without being on the ground to survey, please take care to check other sources like Mapillary and OSC for more recent imagery, and take care to look at the object's history that you are changing. For example the older version of the way you changed was part of changeset/68323199 which specifically mentioned in the changeset comment "Removal of roundabout which has now been removed and creation of new traffic signals at Decora Drive (have driven through this area, satellite imagery is not updated yet)".

I've fixed these for the ways which aren't roads.

Hi I noticed you named way/628481043/history "Unknown" if you're unsure of the name or it doesn't have a name it's best to just leave the name empty/blank.

Also for way/628481056 you've used the name u, is that correct or should I delete it?

Hi I see you added way/566508381 with name="NoName".

If the track has no name or you're unsure, best to just leave the name empty/blank.

Hi I saw you added way/666661918/history with the name "Unnamed Road". If the road really has no name then you can just leave the name empty, and if you want add the noname=yes tag.

Or did you source the name from somewhere else?

Hi I noticed you named way/39812127/history "Unnamed", if there is no name you can just omit the name tag.

Where did "Unnamed" come from?

Hi I noticed you named way/30536224/history "Unnamed", if there is no name you can just omit the name tag.

Where did "Unnamed" come from?

Hi I noticed you named way/23323206/history "Unnamed", if there is no name you can just omit the name tag.

Where did "Unnamed" come from?

I reverted your change as you deleted the road name, please next time if in doubt first ask the original contributor of the data via a changeset comment.

Indeed it's complicated! I've never heard of "Sydney Transport" so I would say that's wrong.

I turn to the wiki for guidance on what network should be. network=* says "A system of routes typically maintained or designated by a single agency or organization."

You're correct that at the high level these routes are all part of the "Transport for NSW" network, but within TfNSW you have different brands you pointed out at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_for_NSW#Public_transport_services.

I think it's more useful to use the more specific network, ie. "Sydney Trains", "NSW TrainLink Intercity", "NSW TrainLink Regional", "Sydney Metro".

The `operator` for the routes can still be the top level "Transport for NSW".

That's my view, but the mapper for relation/3165664 has it the other way around.

Another example of one I attempted is relation/6440108

Hey there, I originally mapped way/692588328 but I think the change you made is probably okay, this is a good example of the difficulty in accurately mapping both physical infrastructure, and logical networks for routing etc.

hey we've been getting a lot of poor quality edits, are you the local business owner interested in mapping this in OSM?