Hi welcome to OSM. For next time, the name should only be if the building/apartments have a proper name. If they don't have a name you can leave it out. The street number is not a name. See also name=*

I don't have any local knowledge here so can't comment on the specifics but highway=track does a good job of documenting the difference between highway=track and highway=residential and when each should be used.

Hi and welcome to OSM. In general if things exist on the ground then they can be added to OSM, that includes driveways on private property. For driveways you can add the tag service=driveway and to mark access as private then access=private could be added.

I've reverted your change to reinstate these driveways.

Also for way/279298841/history is there some signage which says bicycles are not allowed? Otherwise what's the reason for bicycle=no?

Also for way/173974614/history access=private already says it's a private driveway, so I'm not sure what bicycle=no means here? Is it needed?

Hi could you please add the attribution for this dataset to the Transport for NSW section at osm.wiki/Contributors this is required per the agreement that TfNSW signed osm.wiki/File:TfNSW_OSM_CCBY_Signed_Waiver.pdf

Hi for way/276694450/history I rode my bike there 4 years back and can't recall any no bicycle sign, what's your source for bicycles not allowed here?

@nevw you can't delete from maps.me, all you can do is "this no longer exists" which will add a note.

@robmacca, in maps.me you can use bookmarks for adding pins just saved on your phone, but the add "Add a place to the map" does indeed add it to OSM. No big deal, we see a lot of people make the same mistake. If you do come across real ones missing on the map, please do keep adding them.

Hi so after reading your comment at way/805172838 have you actually surveyed this? If you haven't then please add a note to the map instead, a website which says there is a track there is not enough validation for adding a path.

Ah interesting I didn't realise there was a track from that side, I did see some markers but track was almost completely overgrown. I've mapped the track from the other side in way/787887491

I've reverted the access=customers change since I didn't hear back.

For next time it's better to split the way and add the maxheight to the segment under the bridge only, otherwise it impacts routing that wouldn't normally go under the bridge. I've fixed this one.

just a tip, if you're not sure on the building type you can just add it as a generic building (building=yes), then someone later doing a ground survey can improve the building type. At least some of these are probably building=apartments since they house multiple units see building=*#Accommodation

I see you added access=no + motor_vehicle=yes to https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/410251553 unless the road is closed I think that top level access tag is best left unset. motor_vehicle=yes is not harmful to tag, but is usually assumed by default so most of the time not really necessary. Which specific from/to points were you noticing the routing issue?

Hi I noticed you deleted https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/80951861 and replaced it with a new way, if you could try to retain existing objects to keep the history that's best. For now I'll restore back the original way and add your tags so the history can be maintained.

By the way, crossing=marked is a duplicate of crossing=uncontrolled crossing=* "Duplicate of crossing=uncontrolled, i.e. a crossing with road markings, but no traffic lights." so there's no reason to need to change from uncontrolled to marked.

way/507279778/history which business do you need to be a customer of to use this car park? If it open to the public to use then it should be access=yes, access=customers means only people here for the shop/cafe/pub/etc can use the car park.

It has a bollard mapped, which would block vehicles, so I can't see anything wrong unless the bollard has since been removed.

way/803661799/history bridge=culvert doesn't make sense, did you mean tunnel=culvert on the waterway?

way/22978301/history I wouldn't call that a forest track, it looks more like a service road at least for the start of the road https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/83XPAu3nOn6Ujq6HjTD5Bg. What do you think?