OpenStreetMap has a very documented way of handling most issues, and there have been issues with users in the past not being able to recognise the documentation and instead using their personal beliefs as their standard for contributing - I'm glad this is not the case here, and I applaud you for coming around. If you'd like some reading material on "standard practise", the two links that aharvey mentioned in his original comment are a great place to start. The wiki has very thorough information on what is expected 🙌🏻

Do you have a link to the policy you're referring to where it's accepted to remove data for low-quality buildings? I'd like to see what officially recognised/community-standard position you're referring to.

I just checked the buildings you had removed personally and they were of a completely standard quality that you would expect in the OSM database. It's humourous that you personally use an AI to add buildings for you, one that seems to only recognise sheds as buildings (changeset/162522492), in a completely erratic/sparse pattern that doesn't provide any sort of benefit to data consumers/end users, to be judging others for doing the same. If you're not happy with the quality of data in the OSM database, you're welcome to either fix it, or ignore it. You cannot remove data for reasons such as "low quality".

While I understand your point of view, and there have been many cases where I would have liked to have done the same, this is not the OpenStreetMap way.

As @aharvey provided links to, and as @fortera_au mentioned; if data is incorrect, you fix it, not delete it.

fortera and aharvey are correct here. please fix the buildings yourself if you don't think they're of a sufficient quality. data shouldn't be deleted

Hello, I just wanted to query what your motivation behind the pattern for adding buildings is here? It's incredibly erratic and looks suspicious, like an AI or bot program, which is forbidden without user intervention or community discussion. Kind regards.

From the definition of Key:name, "The primary name: in general, the most prominent signposted name or the most common name in the local language(s)."
Despite the gazetted name remaining as the "official" name, the station's signposted name is "Wattle Glen". You can see in the surrounding area, including that of the suburb is also "Wattle Glen". The gazetted name does not match what is used in reality, and we map what exists in reality, not a legal database. Why is this even a discussion? `name` is not what is considered official; it's what's prominent, most used, and locally recognised – which is what is signposted.
I suggest you choose a better hill to die on before you get suspended by the DWG over this pointless edit war.

+1 This sounds like the best solution to me. Unnecessary edit war when such a simple solution exists.

Hi MapAnalyser465,
We don't have access to either of the sources that you linked as the source for this changeset. Have you been in contact with Big JayDog Adventures separately and received permission to use their footage for OSM mapping? The M12 CA Portal is also copyrighted.
Kind regards, Chris.

Hey Kyle,
I thought I would chime in here because it's currently being discussed in the Discord server. We're currently compiling speeds from the trains through GTFS-R and manual observation and have numbers for the majority of these sections, which seem to be a bit higher than your calculations. So this is just a heads-up that either I or someone from the Discord may overwrite these speeds in the coming days/weeks.
Kind regards, Chris.

Hi Kyle,
I believe the current consensus for adding proposed features is that they shouldn't be added (as proposed) until a project is actually "confirmed" (aka undeniably "will be built"). It seems that despite land being acquired to protect these corridors for future use is currently being undertaken, the project is not yet confirmed to go ahead nor are there concrete plans that this will exist in the future, so I propose we remove these for now.
What are your thoughts?
Kind regards,
Chris.

I'm unfamiliar with the Data SA definitions, but rarely should they match the OSM guidelines. Would you be able to provide me with the definitions?

Fortera is correct here. The OSM definitions of roads are completely different/separate from the Government's own classification scheme. This has always been the case.

**Road hierarchy must be based on the OSM Wiki definitions in OSM and not that of any outside source. OSM does not exist to replicate any Government database or information. OSM records the true state of the environment as it exists on the ground at that moment. It is up to your own best interpretation of the existing environment in accordance with the mapping standards that are set forth in the wiki.**

Hi there. Generally, it is only advised to add names to footpaths/sidewalks if they are specifically signposted/designated, which is uncommon for sidewalks in particular. Not that it's necessarily incorrect information to add the street name to footpaths/sidewalks; this data is easily added by data consumers detecting adjacent streets, and is not commonly tagged in Australia.

Thank you for your contribution, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! I've reviewed your edit, and everything seems perfect. A great contribution for your first time!

A quick comment, though: if you'd be able to make use of the "Sources" field when submitting a changeset, this helps reviewers verify where the information added comes from, as OpenStreetMap does have strict data-licensing terms. If you got this information (for example) in person by visiting the location, you can use the term `survey` in the Sources field.

Additionally, we have a Discord community server in which you would be more than welcome to join, where you can ask questions or just chat with other members of the OSM Australia community. I'll leave the link here if you would like to consider joining.
https://discord.gg/openstreetmap

Thanks again, and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

Hi Lockstar,

It is correct that the term "sidewalk" is based on the American usage of the term, but that does not exclude it from being the correct and preferred tag for "footways adjacent to a road".

We tried to make this easier to understand in the Australian English translation by changing Foot Path to Walkway and Sidewalk to Foot Path (Sidewalk), but perhaps this just caused increased confusion... If that is the case, I apologise and will bring this up with other members of the community in the Discord server to be reconsidered.

Regarding your edits, there is a considerable amount of changesets that will need to be reverted, but I'll have to bring this up with other members of the community as well as this will be a large task.

Regarding naming footpaths with their adjacent roads, this information can be interpreted by data consumers quite easily, so it's not recommended to name them unless the paths themselves are specifically signposted and named, like in the case of Shared Paths, Laneways, etc.

Thank you for your swift response regarding this matter!

If you'd like to join the Discord, we're happy to answer any questions and are quite active in the #oceania channel to just chat and discuss anything OSM-related.
https://discord.gg/openstreetmap

Hi there, it's not typical that footpaths have the attached street name assigned to them, in fact, this is the first time I've ever seen such an instance of this on OpenStreetMap.

It also looks like you removed footway=sidewalk from completely correct/acceptably tagged sidewalks with this edit. Would you be able to provide a reason for this change?

Thanks, Chris.

Hi there. This changeset appears to add Address Names/Numbers to the names of several businesses in Parramatta Square, where they would not usually be a part of the name. Please note that names should only contain the official business name as listed on signage or other physical features. I've reverted this changeset as part of changeset/139296541. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this decision.

Hi there. For the light rail stations you added nodes for, there were already correct station ways underneath that serve the same purpose, creating duplicates. I suggest reverting (deleting) the addition of these nodes.

For Wynyard,
Existing way: way/740048667
Duplicated node: node/11064809457

Hi 19timer96,

As per the wiki's definition and generally well-accepted mapping practices, wooded areas are not mapped as landuse=forest, but as natural=wood. landuse=forest is meant for managed forests, natural=wood is meant for unmanaged bush lands.

Please refer to the following links:
natural=wood
landuse=forest

-Chris