I've reverted this changeset in changeset/120463915

Hi there, we don't add features to OpenStreetMap that; 1. are proposed and are not certain to ever exist, and 2. don't currently and verifiably exist in real life. Please check the following link for more information on what can be mapped in OSM. osm.wiki/Good_practice#Map_what%27s_on_the_ground

Truly not a problem, happy to help. I hope you're able to get this fixed 👍🏻

Yup, this is ultimately the council's jurisdiction and they provide road/footpath GIS to the Dept., but the council's reception probably wouldn't have known of the existence of this department as it's fairly new and not well-known, nor are they asked about it often I'd imagine. They should've put you in touch with whoever manages GIS at the council though. I'd recommend getting in contact with the Dept of Spatial Services first and they'll most likely follow up with the council to get the data added -- but even then it can take years for providers to update their own data with it so don't hold your breath.

I completely agree, but in our internet-connected 21st-century society, everything is still so disconnected and everyone has their own data that they prefer to use. So it's difficult. If the ambos are actually using 100% government data, you might want to contact the NSW Department of Spatial Services to have the service road added to the base map, which ESRI and others sometimes pull from as an additional data source. You might want to also request an update on Apple Maps, which should be relatively easy to do in the app.

Edit link here: https://communitymaps.arcgis.com/home/

Looking at the NSW Government's base map, they don't have data for a road here, but as it's visible on aerial imagery, this is why it was only added 9 months ago by another contributor to OSM.

The way OpenStreetMaps works is we maintain a public and open data set for other providers, like navigation/GPS systems providers, can use. For example; TomTom will take data from OSM at intervals and combine it with their own data, as well as other sources, merge it all together and that's their product. This is how internet-connected systems work, but it's possible that non-internet connected systems don't get updated automatically (you'd have to plug it into your computer to update it), and as such can have data from many many years ago. Most sources take their data from OpenStreetMaps because it's free for them to do, but it's up to each individual company to keep their own data up to date with OSM, which they don't always do, so it truly depends on the company who makes the GPS unit, but in the case of the road data in OSM, I found no reason why an up to date GPS wouldn't have been able to find your house from the data that currently exists in OSM.

The other main provider of maps data is ESRI, which is often a preferred source of data for Government use, which may have been used by the ambos, etc.

Having a look at the ESRI map, your road is not listed and could be the reason for the problem. You can take a look here: https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html

If you sign up for an account you might be able to contribute to the map or report a problem, but I can't see any way to do this without being logged in.

I'm also sorry to hear about your medical emergency, I hope you're alright. I can only imagine the stress caused by the failure of a nav system to find your house in an emergency.

Hi Lucy, thanks for your contribution to OpenStreetMaps. I've done some investigation and can't see any reason why this road wouldn't appear on your navigation system -- so the most likely issue would be that the data on your navigation system isn't up to date. The service road in question was added 9 months ago so it should be rolled out to most devices. Is there anywhere in whatever app you're using that you can find where you can update the OSM data? It might not update automatically and may need to be done manually. Please get back to me as i'd love to solve this issue for you. I've also gone ahead and made some changes and fixes of the service road and driveways you added in your changeset, those are reflected in changeset/119002983. Kind regards, Chris.

Hi there, welcome to OpenStreetMaps! I'm very active in this area so I thought I'd point out a few things that I wish I'd known when I'd started. The DCS NSW Imagery, while usually pretty good in alignment, is quite out of date. We usually use Bing for updated imagery (seems to have been taken around March 2021). Please note that Bing isn't as well-aligned as DCS so you need to align it manually. I find -0.13, -1.22 is best for St Clair. (This offset changes from area to area but you can use this value for St Clair. As well as things like landuse and lot boundaries, you can align this to the NSW Base Map, as it's generally considered the "single source of truth" for NSW that lots are aligned to. Roads are generally not aligned to this as however. If you'd like to chat with the Oceania team or have questions etc., feel free to find us in the OSM Discord in the #oceania channel (https://discord.gg/openstreetmap).

I see! For the wood areas over top the heath areas, would I first make a relation of the woods being inner for the heath, and then that relation as an inner for the grassland?

Hi there. I'm still getting the hang of relations, but my intent was to map multiple connected grassy areas on campus, but split them into a multi-polygon because of the size of the area (for maintainability) in the future. I'll keep this in mind for the future as it seems you've already made the necessary fixes. Thank you!

Hi there. I'm commenting on behalf of the OSM Discord Oceania team, we wanted to question why you're removing otherwise correct emergency access tags on roads (i.e. emergency=yes+access=no). This is listed as correct usage on the wiki. Would you mind explaining? Thanks.

From DCS and Bing, it's hard to tell but I think the road is flat (not elevated), up to where it goes into the cut out on the right-hand side (parking lot under the northern side on the ground floor), but continuing on is then a steep drop into an underground garage. From Bing imagery, I can see a few cars peeking out from behind on the northern edge, so I think it's the whole rear of the ground level. I can't see anything to suggest it goes up to the first level, so assume 0-1 = shops+carpark, 1-10 = apartments.

Hi again. Checking a third-party source for reference for the shape of the building, I believe the original building part was correct. The first floor is consistent with the building outline the whole way around, but levels 2-10 are indeed different from the base outline, which the building:part reflected. I also compared the rendering of the building to two building renderers and it was correctly tagged and rendered in both, producing the actual/correct shape of the building as it is in reality. Would you consider reverting the deletion of this building:part? Thanks.

Hi mate. Just wanted to check why you deleted the building part of the apartments over the shop layer below, as the previous history appears to have been correct as of Feb 2021 imagery. Thanks.

Hi there. In your changeset message you noted there are buildings being constructed where the now-deleted carpark was, would you mind adding a rough area of the construction site or the buildings? Thanks.

Thanks, should be fixed in changeset/116844072

Thanks, fixed.
changeset/116686056

Yeah! I really appreciate it. The folks in the #oceania channel on Discord have been a tremendous help :)

Hey, thanks for fixing that. I wasn't aware, but I now know for the future :)
Thanks mate