Also previously you had both the place name of Dangar Island for place=island and the administrative suburb boundary boundary=administrative also named Dangar Island. So I'll restore this but you've made some other changes mixed in here which are good like the bay name, amenities around the ferry terminal and the landcover, so I'll try to fix this by hand without reverting anything....

Okay I just deleted it and left a note instead for a ground survey since it was originally added from the LPI basemap and not from survey.

True but there is only one Museum station and it was already mapped and tagged at node/6571334824 so I'll remove the train station tags from this node, until someone can confirm if there is a museum here or not... If no museum then can just delete this node.

hi, not sure if it was mentioned in a private message or not but, ways are placed based on the physical seperation not where lane markings go. Turn lanes can be mapped via turn lane tags. This change was reverting in changeset/95940898 based on that justification.

found it https://maproulette.org/challenge/15439 not sure why it didn't come up in searches

PS. Could you point me to this map roulette challenge, I couldn't find it.

That name was already added as alt_name. I've seen schools with multiple signs some say Primary some say Public School so there is no right answer. If you want to swap this based on a survey that's fine, but best to keep the other name as alt_name and not have both name and alt_name the same.

ps. could you please point to which MapRoulette challenge this is? I couldn't find it.

The email, phone and fax were already added using the contact prefix, but if you feel the need to duplicate this information with the non-prefixed tags then I guess that's okay. Just a shame to see so much wasted effort because the community can't agree on which tag to use for a phone number....

hi for way/319518760/history you can just delete the construction tags and add the landuse, eg landuse=residential tag

hi the lifeguard tower was already mapped here with way/886904509. It's fine to upgrade this to a way, but best practice is to try to reuse the existing node as part of the way (though it's okay if you don't). However the new tag you've used is only emergency=lifeguard which is much less specific than the previous emergency=lifeguard_tower I'd mapped which you deleted. I'll update this to reinstate the lifeguard_tower tag.

Hi I've reverted this change because it broke admin boundaries, dragged nodes, made roads dual carriageway where a single way is the accepted way to map. I couldn't see any positive changes here. If if could please reply what you were trying to map here?

hi what does opening_hours=「「「 mean?

Hi, per common practice and documented at osm.wiki/Highways#Carriageways only where there is a physical separation between the two directions of travel should you use two ways in OSM. If there is no physical separation, a single way along the centre line is the way to go. I've rolled back this change to how it was before with single ways.

https://www.bluemts.com.au/info/towns/mt-victoria/ mentioned it as Pulpit Rock, my guess is both this one and the one overlooking Gross Valley both are known as Pulpit Rock. I checked my photos of the area and couldn't find it signposted.

Is this oneway for bicycles? Looking at the tags before hand at https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/298288936 it said forward bicycles were allowed but not backward, by adding the bicycle=yes tag it's now ambigious if bicycles are allowed in both directions. If only one direction is allowed then should the bicycle tag should be omitted for the bicycle:forward and bicycle:backward tags? If allowed in both directions then we don't need :forward and :backward tags.

For visibility here, Briggs Soria messaged me privately, they went through and removed the content copied from the copyrighted maps.

I assume you're referring to https://maps.blacktown.nsw.gov.au/, the terms say "Information obtained from this site must not be commercialised, reproduced, published or distributed without written permission from Blacktown City Council.". This is not compatiable with OpenStreetMap which publishes data under the ODbL license.

If you look at Blacktown City Council maps, and then enter that data into OSM then it could be considered a breach of copyright and BCC's terms, so unfortunately we can't refer to BCC's maps.

Sources we do have permission to use like the DCS imagery can be used, or of course information you derive from an ground survey.

Hi, If you're systematically copying data from BCC MapsOnline we need copyright permission to do that, can you confirm if this is under a compatible license? Otherwise this data will need to be removed to avoid breaching copyright.

For context this change was made due to a Data Working Group request about closed tracks appearing on the map,