Reverted by DWG

changeset/167813842

Reverted by DWG

changeset/167813842

Reverted by DWG

changeset/167813842

It's still "officially" part of the standard, but it's being ignored more and more at least.

I'd be in favour of changing the name back to its previous one, or another name from GTFS if preferred.

That name follows the PTv2 name format, however that's been widely discussed/disputed. I've generally ignored that format and use whatever name is actually used in either GTFS or on vehicles themselves.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/167774788

Hi there, is the dog park going to be rebuilt with the same name? If so, a lifecycle prefix might be best, maybe construction:leisure=dog_park

osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/167761070

4212 is significantly closer to Brisbane, this definitely seems incorrect.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/167718089

Does North Toowoomba East actually exist? I can find North Toowoomba and East Toowoomba, but nothing combining the two of them.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/167720870

Hi there, club=sport might be a more appropriate tag for this
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/167717852

Sorry, forgot to add:

Thanks,
Andrew Welch, OSMF Data Working Group

(translated via LibreTranslate)

嗨,你把Bing列为线人 但Bing没有显示正在建设的高速公路 你能告诉我这是什么来源吗?

谢谢
安德鲁·韦尔奇,OSMF 数据工作组

Hi, you've listed Bing as a source, however Bing doesn't show that motorway under construction. Can you let me know what the source for this is?

Hi, greens shouldn't be mapped inside of fairway/rough ways, the fairway/rough should be mapped as a multipolygon, with anything inside of it marked as an inner of that multipolygon. How this is currently mapped says that the green is also the rough, which is obviously wrong. You've also done the same thing with sand traps, these should be inners of a multipolygon relationship if they're entirely surrounded by a fairway/rough.

Hi, is there actually a railway buffer stop on the edge of a bunker here?

If it's the same object and they were mapped as a node before and are remaining a node, it's best practice to move the node, not delete and recreate. This was done for most of the existing campsites that have been updated.

Thanks for confirming the source too. It's best to add that in when you edit, especially for something like this that can't be determined from aerial imagery, that way other mappers know that you've checked in person and it's not potentially from an undisclosed source online.

Hi there, just wondering what the source of this data is? It's also best to just edit existing objects instead of deleting and creating new ones, as there was additional data that you've now removed as part of this.

I'm thinking this should probably be reverted and done again once the data source is clear and known to be acceptable for OSM.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/167558279

Why did you remove it? It's a valid tag on a relation in an entirely different country. Please don't remove tags if you're not sure whether it's correct.

You deleted a tag from an object in Australia, which I have restored.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166831068

I've corrected it in changeset/166946301 for you
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166914517

The address formatting looks good to me, aadr:state, addr:postcode and addr:suburb are redundant in Australia since we have that fully covered by relations and that can be obtained easily when needed.

For the phone number, you'll want the international format, in this case it would be phone=+61 8 8724 2222
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166914517

If it's the same as other streets around it (i.e. Winwood) then residential is perfectly fine.

The access=private tags you'll definitely want to remove if they're public streets now though.