This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/174443403 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: incompatible source

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/174443403 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: incompatible source

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/174443403 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: incompatible source

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/174443403 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: incompatible source

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/174443403 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: incompatible source

The one marked as secondary definitely doesn't look as such, it looks like a service road alongside a secondary road.

I've also checked another one where road=footpath was changed to highway=footway, however aerial imagery isn't clear enough to determine whether it's a footpath, track, or just old markings in the ground.

There's also the road=centerline that have been changed into road_marking=centerline, which is both a tag that has never or rarely been used in Australia outside of this edit, and is also incorrect in the first instance I checked.

It's also not polite to just make a change like this and expect the local community to just find issues and fix them later. You should instead either try and map it correctly, set it to highway=road to be picked up later, or contact that community.

I think this edit should be reverted as it doesn't look like these changes have all been reviewed, making this an undiscussed automated edit.

Then this should be reverted, as the Automated Edits Code of Conduct hasn't been followed.

osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct

Thanks for clarifying that. If you've checked in person, the best thing to put down as a source is "survey" for something you've specifically checked, or "local knowledge" if it's just something you're aware of because it's closer to you.

Without specifying one of those, then it's hard to not assume you've either copied from a copyrighted website or an unknown source.

Hi, before making this change, did you check out each of the objects? You've marked what looks like a dirt road as highway=secondary purely based on it being tagged as road=secondary, making me think this was an unchecked automated edit.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174268528

Hi, before making this change, did you check out each of the objects? There is at least one node that you've now marked as highway=road, making me think this was an unchecked automated edit.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174269176

Hi, before making this change, did you check out each of the objects? There is at least one node that you've now marked as highway=road, making me think this was an unchecked automated edit.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174269176

The way was reversed, but JOSM and iD will change the oneway tag to -1 assuming that you want the direction the oneway applies to, to remain the same.

If you're reversing a way to change the direction oneway applies to, you need to keep the tag as yes.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174274947

Hi, is there a source for this other than the mainroads.wa.gov.au website? Our waiver only covers their CC BY 4.0 datasets, not their website.

You've also removed an offramp that is visible on ESRI World Imagery, has that actually been removed?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174268772

More accurate data is always better than less. Individually mapped trees (regardless of amount of tags outside natural=tree) is more data than just a tree row, so we'd want to keep that. Like ArchangelEkim said, you can still add a tree row using the nodes that exist for the trees, as long as the trees remain tagged.

Hi, you've connected a sidewalk to a residential landuse area, ideally these shouldn't be connected as they are completely unrelated.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174019990

Hey, a lot of these do look like they're semi-detatched houses, common in these kind of residential living areas. If you want to add a bit of extra detail, you can usually use a fence in the backyard to identify where the split between the two is, and map the two houses separately (with the one wall joining them together) if you want to. Don't feel obliged to, but it's a handy way to add a bit of extra detail!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174046445

Hi, you can square buildings in iD and JOSM using the Q key.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174057102

Hi, the building=yes should only cover one building, you've extended it to cover sections that look like verandahs and grass.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174057323

I've reverted this due to the incorrect change and loss of existing data

changeset/174042290

Hi, you've accidentally dragged a node that's part of a multipolygon onto Ocean Road, I've fixed this up for you in changeset/174001668
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/173957725