Hi Hb-, I'm writing here on behalf of the Data Working Group. Other mappers have expressed concerns with some of your changes here, which they reverted, which you've subsequently reinstated. See https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2020-January/013527.html the consensus seems to be leaning towards not mapping out burt areas. Feel free to chime into the discussion, but otherwise I think the local community consensus here is a good guide.

I've now fixed the St abbreviation.

You've made the footpath here bicycle=yes, generally the footpath in NSW you can't ride on unless you're a child or riding with a child. Is there special signage here indicating bicycles are permitted?

Are you sure way/498979129 is oneway? The way it's mapped at the moment it's impossible to drive from Victoria to Melbourne due to this oneway. Either that or the oneway on way/44954811 is wrong, but it seems more likely that you'd drive round the pier to check in then onto the ferry.

Since your source is not survey I'll assume you haven't done a ground survey. You've already made this change twice before, this will be the third time. I will revert it again for the reasons already mentioned at
changeset/78400885
changeset/77842957

retirement_home is a bit more specific than social_facility. I think you'd need to add social_facility=assisted_living and social_facility:for=senior to avoid loosing information. Could you fix this please?

Hi Luen,

I noticed you've used the LIST Topo basemap, however as noted at https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ CC BY data cannot be used in OpenStreetMap without a waiver. Also noted at osm.wiki/Australian_data_catalogue in this case the copyright owner has not agreed to the waiver after multiple attempts spanning a few years and by different people. So you cannot use their data in OSM.

Data from a survey or your own GPS is fine. Which data has been copied from the LIST? as we'll need to remove it.

Feel free to change it, I don't have any local knowledge. I just think it should be no less than 3.

Perfect!

Thanks. Just a few more tips.

1. It's not always possible, but if possible it's preferred to retain existing objects by editing them rather than deleting them so that the history is retained see osm.wiki/Good_practice#Keep_the_history

2. If you see the tags from the original road before you made changes way/173233421/history it has "Street" not "St" by convention we spell out the full word.

ele=* ele is height in meters above sea level. -1 doesn't sound right I'll remove it.

hi I don't think the railway platform should have the wikidata/wikipedia for the station. This information should exist on the station object in OSM and can be linked to the station via the station relation which groups the platforms with the station.

Hi for Bradley Street the section at way/740090186, I noticed you've used two ways for the road one in each direction. As a rule of thumb that's only done where there is a physical separation (dual carriage), if there is just a painted line on the road we use a single way. From the imagery there is no physical barrier here. What's it look like one the ground?

Hi this is mostly okay but I've found a few issues, could you please take a look and let me know if you either disagree or have fixed them?

1. you've created a tunnel way/765150553/history yet there is obviously no tunnel there https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=sNzI76_v9TFUQIiF7hPBMA&focus=photo

2. you've added a crossing node/7146434059/ but there exists no crossing https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=JBYRRHQkIXXAdLPjnoZ3UQ&focus=photo a driveway passing the footpath shouldn't be a crossing which is defined as a place to cross the road, it shouldn't apply to a driveway.

3. way/765150551/history in the imagery you can see there is a foot bridge over the drain,, it's not a culvert tunnel.

4. way/765150522/history is possibly a bridge not a culvert, if you're unsure it's better to leave the issue there until someone who knows for sure can fix it.

5. way/683838192/history if this is a 7-Eleven shop it's unlikely to be building=residential. building=retail is probably better.

Since boundary=administrative#10_admin_level_values_for_specific_countries mentions admin_level=8 for communes and since it's the admin_center for relation/389658 which is also admin_level=8 I'll set that.

@balcoath you can revert the revert changeset. Ideally this would be done in the right order so they can smoothly applied assuming no other changes have been made. Now that we have the imagery tracing waiver from ECan I see no reason why data derived from the imagery can't be used now.

See also https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-nz/2020/000187.html the ECan imagery is ingested by LINZ so which we do have the layer in OSM for, but ECan can be more recent as it takes time for LINZ to update their mosaic.

After approaching Environment Canterbury they have agreed to the OSM tracining waiver https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ to allow OSM to trace from their aerial imagery.

Their permission form at osm.wiki/File:EnvironmentCanterbury_AerialimagerywaiversfortracingforOpenStreetMap.pdf

This only covers the Imagery layer https://gisbasemap.ecan.govt.nz/arcgis/rest/services/Imagery/MapServer and https://gisbasemap.ecan.govt.nz/arcgis/rest/services/Imagery/Imagery_basemap_WGS84_4/MapServer

Only if the tree is notable and has its own Wikipedia or wikidata entry.

Just to close this out, I've fixed this in changeset/79746903

That grass runway you added, I can't see anything on the latest Maxar imagery from October 2019, do you think we should still keep this runway?