Okay I couldn't see how you would know this, but I can see that now. I've reinstated the canoe and added sailing tag.

Per approach 1 which seems to be the widespread usage in Australia says landuse=forest only for land managed for forestry ie. where trees are grown, then cut down for wood, then grown, etc.

We should reserve it for use where we know it's for forestry.

What I'd suggest is come post on the talk-au mailing list so we can discuss the best approach to map and tag things first.

That helps prevent you getting frustrated with us that we're reverting your hard work, and prevents us getting frustrated with you for mapping things we're not sure about your source of information, what you're exactly trying to map and the exact tags to use.

I think brownfield can make sense if the land has been cleared and will soon be developed on, but only in cases where we know it's scheduled for development and not an arbitrary christian cross drawn on the map.

Thanks for helping map out razed etc buildings affected by the recent bushfires

way/764280866#map=18/-36.37302/149.95925 we typically in Australia use Approach 1
osm.wiki/Forest#Approach_1 ie. landuse=forest is for forestry for timber production, natural=wood is for areas covered by trees (bushland).

way/762643766 how do you know it's used for canoe sports?

Looking at the video it does look like a fire trail since there are no trees growing where it's driving. But regardless I would still have deleted this since it's from a copyrighted source.

Where you changed the fire station from an area to a point, I'll revert that too. Where we have enough information to indicate the extent of the fire station it is mapped as an area. Mapping as a point is only used where we don't yet know or too lazy to map out the area.

Without my DWG hat on, I took another look and have deleted (again) the landuse=brownfield ways since, this is not the correct tag (that for an area cleared which will be developed, which is not the case here), and mapping burt areas is discouraged at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2020-January/013527.html.

Mapping raised buildings is good, as it can be clearly surveyed and mapped.

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.