these paths go to the waters edge so should connect

I've been there, surveyed this, it's not a tunnel.

hi from the imagery it's not clear these are actually bridges

hi from the imagery it looks like there may be a path here, so I don't think it's right to delete.

hi, I don't see the point in tag fiddling source:geometry and source:position they mean the same thing and both are common.

hi, I've also sent a note to the MapRoulette Challenge author, but I'll also ask you, how do you know there is actually a ford here and there's not a foot bridge?

FYI you've added a level crossing between a railway tunnel and a surface road. I've fixed this now, but the question is, has this happened in other locations too?

You might want to check out the NSW Floods imagery which is probably the most recent for this area. Should be coming into editors soon.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103600984

Actually in this case you can set the building type as semi, I just updated this one so you can see.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103618237

Are you sure there is a camp site here? I can't see anything from the imagery.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103191492

way/917870231 are you sure that's a beach? It looks more like a tidal flat which is tagged as wetland=tidalflat

Hi, I don't have the local knowledge here but what exactly is the "Lower Western Foreshore" referring to? According to google a "foreshore" is "the part of a shore between high- and low-water marks, or between the water and cultivated or developed land.", so it's just a narrow strip or just the coastline part? Because we already have a natural=water for Pittwater, so trying to understand what this feature you added represents.

Thanks, that's what I intended.

There were two buildings here deleted, from what I can tell there are still here, is that not the case?

1/3. Yes the area tag for offices is landuse=commercial. landuse=commercial

The postal facility, I'd still tag this as landuse=commercial I think it' mostly fits better based on the wiki descriptions for commercial and industrial.

2. I added those building footprints as rough outlines. You're welcome to improve the geometry if you like, but even as a rough outline I think it's still helpful to show where the building is vs not having it at all. I also added the outline so that StreetComplete would prompt for the building quests, and having a way is helpful when on the ground surveying to know which building the quests relate to.

> → Better with https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=101694915 ?
Where possible it's better practice to update existing objects instead of deleting then adding, but I know this isn't always practical.

The DCS imagery has the best alignment here, so I'll adjust to that. I still noticed another set of townhouses was deleted in your later changeset.

> PS: Do you know the name of way/921646704 ?
Looks like a generic office building with no obvious name from the outside.

A lot of these where you've add works landuse appear to be office buildings, and not works per man_made=works. Could you provide more detail about your changes please?

hi was this via a survey? A few questions,
1. Why is the SBS office marked as works "an industrial production plant"? Is this not an office anymore?
2. Why were the buildings on Parks Road deleted? Are there no longer there? They are visible on the most recent ESRI imagery.
3. Is landuse=works correct for the St Leonards Corporate Center area, Fox Sports office building and AusPost facility, I thought these are mostly commercial office buildings, not industrial production plants.
4. With the St Leonards clinict, you've moved the amenity=hospital tag from the building to the grounds, but there are a bunch of other tags related to the hospital, these need to be moved across as they relate to the amenity=hospital.

How do you decide the extent of this watershed? ie. why Sydney Coast-Georges? I would assumed you'd have a watershed for each coastal outlet but looks like a few have been combined here, how was that decided? If we start saying it's okay to map watersheds that could end up being a lot of areas for each coastal outlet? Does it make sense to actually include this in OSM? There are other ways to query OSM data such that your query object can be outside OSM.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/101377566

Overall I don't think the tag really adds much as it's a fair default assumption, but still somebody decided to add it, so removing it should be thought out.

I think the originally mapper was trying to say that bicycles can use the shoulder here. Which would be the default so they certainly aren't wrong.

> b) shoulder:access:bicycle=yes is a bit of 'lets say: extensive odd way' of telling: bicycle=yes & shoulder=yes

Not quite, the top level access tags like bicycle=yes would refer to the carriageway not usually the shoulder. You could have different access rules for the shoulder vs the roadway.

> it looked hardly likely bicycles can use it safely.

That's not really a concern for the access tag. access tag is legal access, not perceived safety.

> If you are known at the place, we can also re-add the shoulder assignment? Together with bicycle = yes (or no, because unsafe)
Best together with bicycle=yes on the pre-post sections as well.

As you said, bicycle access is allowed by default here.

> And if there is a genuine bicycle-traffic-flow we could make a connection for routing apps between the primary link and the nearby footway starting from huntleys point road.
> The latter is not good enough visible on aerial imagery to deside as armchair mapper.

I uploaded Mapillary imagery here a while back, eg at https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=nEtl70cmj-b2GG-V5d18vA&focus=photo

There is no connection between this link road and the footway here, so would be wrong to add a connecting highway=cycleway. However you can still road on this link road if you're riding on the road access Burns Bay Road bridge.

hi protection_title should be "National Park" not national_park.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/101203850