Generally creating no-existent paths for the router is controversial. I've been tollerant of the ones going along beaches, even though I don't agree with them (there's no marked path along the beach so it shouldn't be mapped as a bath), but this is just an open area from the imagery I can't see much evidence of a path, is there anything on the ground?

Though true these should have been with the :lanes suffix like you added, but the destination part comes from you being allowed to drive in a bus lane if you're accessing a driveway (ie. destination along the road). Not saying this is how it should work, but it's explains why.

the tags you removed here were lane tags, so the access restrictions only applied to the left lane not the whole road. This is tagging per osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Bus_Lanes_and_Bus_Only_Lanes happy to discuss if this is correct or not but probably needs a wider discussion on the list.

Oops, good catch.

Okay thanks for the explanation. However in that case motor_vehicle=no is not correct because it blocks even residents from access. For no through routes the documented way to may this is with the destination access value, see access=*#List_of_possible_values ie. motor_vehicle=destination. I've updated the tag based on this.

I've also added the turn restrictions as I could see from Mapillary and as you've indicated here at the Gas Works Road end.

PS. it's fine to use @username for the twitter details, contact:twitter=* specified that either the page URL or @username is fine.

Do you need a relation here? You can add a way which covers the grounds and then add any buildings inside the grounds, and then the spatial relationship shows which buildings are part of the fire station. eg way/42441888

Okay I've made the changes in changeset/90860679 happy to discuss.

direction=*
board:title=*

justification here is that board:title=* is documented and in-use and probably better than "name" when applied to information boards.

Similar to traffic_sign=*#As_part_of_a_way adding signpost node to the way to make it clear it applies to the way and add a direction tag.

I believe the name was the label on the sign, if we are changing the wording to be a description and not exactly as appears on the sign, that should be the description tag.

I'd prefer we don't split the way to make a small section visible.

Similar to traffic_sign=* you could place the node on the way and add a direction tag to make it clear which way the sign applies to. Then map renderers can choose to render it better. This is my preferred option.

This signpost isn't blocking routing in the north direction along way/229050520, while true that visually seeing this name here might be misleading, that's not a data issue. I think given it's so close it's reasonable to snap this node to the path so that it's linked to the closed track, or potentially use a relation to link it to the closed track.
You could argue that the signpost text content shouldn't be in the name tag (I'm on the fence about this), but deleting the name isn't a solution here.

I think there is enough uncertainty in Nearmap's terms of use https://www.nearmap.com/au/en/legal/terms-of-use compatibility with OpenStreetMap to say that Nearmap customers can't derive data from their imagery and upload that into OpenStreetMap. We need to be clear that any derived geospatial data from tracing or observations from the imagery have no restrictions on use that would be in conflict with OpenStreetMap's license. Until there is enough evidence that tracing Nearmap is okay in OSM then Nearmap shouldn't be used.

hi, thanks for adding lanes=1 however this road is still accessible and open so setting access=no is not right, that would mean that it's closed or not accessible. I've removed the access tags. Because footpaths are not mapped here yes, best to leave off the foot access tag unless specifically signposted so that routing engines can still do pedestrian routing.

yes

In the history I can see that it recently had the highway tag removed which set the type of road and defines it as a road, http://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/626562332. I've added that back in now.

FYI bus was already allowed by psv=yes on this way access=*#Land-based_transportation so although adding bus=yes is not wrong, it was already allowed with the current tags.

Has something changed since https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/Gjkbkk-WQf278ulkiRBcow? I can't see anything on the imagery which would restrict cars, only a turn restriction where Walumetta Drive reaches Gas Works Road (those turn restrictions can be mapped separately).

Specifically what on the ground is restricting use by motor vehicles?

Hi Peter, based on https://osmcha.org/changesets/90670135 it is apparent this change wasn't made based on a ground survey. It would be very helpful if next time you could specify your source for making the change it just helps other contributors to understand how it came to be.

hi you renamed the street to Grazier Road but the buildings you added you still set addr:street to Frazier Way?

I've removed aquaculture and set as parking per <1yr old imagery. If you feel that's not right please just post back.