Adding less accurate but still valid data is fine, if you find it and can fix it, please do. Setting a peninsula to water, is not correct and should never go into OSM.

Changes should not be made temporarily for a specific application, as the contents of the OSM DB could be pulled at any moment, leading to some kind of downstream user ending up with incorrect data. If you need these changes temporarily for your own use, you're best off finding a way to take a copy/extract of the OSM DB to make your changes in and use that.

You've changed the entirety of Virginia Peninsula into water and a golf hazard, please ensure your edits are correct.

Definitely makes it easier. Only problem is buildings with angles that aren’t at a 90 degree angle. If it’s just one or two sections I usually add nodes where the walls end, but keep the way going to a 90 degree angle, square it off, then remove the extra node to have it match the wall.

Good work! A tip for buildings, pressing Q with a way selected will square it off to make it a bit more accurate/better looking after you’ve traced it.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145601699

I don't think traffic_signals=signal is the best option for these, since that's designed for standard traffic lights (however it looks like it's a default in iD).

Do you think traffic_signals=level_crossing, or tags like crossing:bell=yes, crossing:light=yes on the crossing itself would be better?

We don’t aim to replicate sources, we aim to replicate real life. The road classifications we use have a pretty decent explanation of the differences, and then if there’s a difference of opinions, the expectation is discussion, not reverting changesets. Every time you’ve had an issue with one of my edits, you’ve immediately reverted it or just said you’re reporting it, there’s been no attempt at a discussion on the actual changes being made. Right now, what you’re doing is easily perceived as claiming your opinion being the right one above everyone else’s. Taking what is shown in DataSA at face value is just as much of an opinion as me looking at aerial imagery, knowledge of roads I’ve driven through, and comparing that with aerial and street level imagery to come to an opinion. If you want to bring up specific roads with why you think they should be classified a certain way, feel free to, and I’m happy to give my reasoning in return.

There’s plenty of places to document these discussions, if you haven’t got it somewhere people can reference, you can’t expect people to know about them, follow them, or trust one mapper claiming they happened.

Have you got that discussion documented somewhere that I can see it? Would be worth making sure it’s somewhere visible so mappers know about it.

Key word being generally. A lot of the time they’ll match up, but not always. We also have more specific tagging standards for Australia, which is what I use whenever I’ve changed the class of a highway, since it shows what is used in this area.

If those facts are government sources, then as you have been told before (by a member of the OSMF board, the board you repeatedly say you send my changesets to), that information isn't 1:1 with OSM's highway classification. OSM's most overarching guidelines say that ground truth is the most important, we map what's on the ground.

If a government source doesn't match what you'd see looking at the road itself, then you don't follow that source and you match what's on the ground.

If you drove along Gawler Street, Park Terrace, and Waterloo Corner Road, you'd see one of those 3 roads as being slower with less traffic.

And vandalism has a specific meaning, you keep using it despite the fact that my edits are not deliberate destruction, but an attempt to improve a map based on resources available, knowledge, and experience of these areas.

Those roads are all connector roads linking higher classed roads to residential roads, with no/minimal houses on them. Can you provide some kind of reasoning for why they aren't a tertiary road that isn't just claiming routing reasons?

And like I said, you could make an argument that tertiary is valid, and I agree, so I've done that here: changeset/145315246.

My interpretation of what? Ground truth shows that this road is not a residential road, and considering it sits between two roads classed as secondary with no actual difference between those two roads and this one, residential makes absolutely no sense.

You could make an argument that this (and Grand Trunkway) would be better classed as tertiary, but definitely not residential or unclassified.

Plus, we don't choose highway tags based on routing, we choose them based on the nature of the road.

Hi, this isn't a residential section and secondary matches the road use.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145314458

Hey, it looks like way/301772546 and way/301772545 are still named Gundy Street, you might need to correct there too!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145310501

Has the court house been relocated/closed? If not, the police station should have stayed as a node, since it doesn't take up the whole of the building.

Hi there, the sculpture trail is already mapped as a footway, is there a need for the separate node?

Hi there, you've added a name to a path and three nodes, are you able to verify these are real names in some way, a photo of signs would be ideal? These names are quite suspicious and seem fictional.