Thanks for your help, @aharvey. As he mentioned, my tagging was in line with the Australian tagging guidelines, and also request that the two changesets be reverted. If you just want to flat revert them, I'd be glad to go over them both and add anything you added in order to minimise the task for you. Thanks again, Chris.

You also removed shared path tagging from a designated shared path + cycleway. What are you doing man??

Hi there, it appears you're mass editing the removal of explicit oneway=no in the Sydney area. Can I please request an explanation?

Hi there, can I please ask why you've been going over my edits and removing footway=sidewalk from sidewalks, and deleting crossings and replacing them with highway=footway in the CBD area? Thanks.

iD duped some ways when trying to merge with another user's changes, working to fix.

Not a problem at all, I'll remove it when I get around to mapping the proposed Elizabeth Drive changes. Also yeah, that document is likely copyrighted as well. I did look around for some documents from allowed sources but there's nothing to do with the Airport (inside the lot bounds) available on the Planning Portal unfortunately.

Hi there, we're not authorised to use the M12 map from CA Portal as it's copyrighted to TfNSW (I tried to get a waiver but I received no response). We do however have permission to use anything from the NSW Planning Portal, which is what I originally added the M12 alignment from, so I think this section may need to be removed or at least verified against another source that we're allowed to use. For reference, this is the source I used for alignment.
https://majorprojects.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/mp/01/getContent?AttachRef=SSI-9364%2120200925T044216.986%20GMT
You should be able to see it stopping at Elizabeth Drive and not continuing into the airport bounds, but perhaps if you found some airport documents, they could be on there?
Thanks, Chris.

Thanks for bringing this up as well, I think railway:preferred_direction=forward would be a great way to map this as oneway=yes definitely implies a lot more in terms of the physicality of the track. I'll take a look over the rail network and let the Discord know and we'll work on this one together as it's a rather wide scope.

Yeah wow that is an absolute mess of a junction. I'll bring that one up in the Discord to be re-done, because that's absolutely incorrect. Please do let me know if you know any more and we can make a list!

Hi Kyle, that's not a problem at all. Roads aren't mapped to individual lanes and line markings in OSM but rather physical separation, barriers, etc., so for intersections with no physical separation, the intersection should be more square-like to help routing. You can see an example of this below.
osm.org/#map=18/-33.75023/150.68806

If you'd like, we're very active on the OpenStreetMap World discord server under the Oceania category, we'd be happy to help you and give advice on anything should you need it or have any questions.
https://discord.gg/openstreetmap

> Hi Kyle, thanks for your changeset, I can see you've added many useful and missed additions to the T1 line between Emu Plains and Rooty Hill. I'm commenting because in the Sydney area, tracks shouldn't be designated as oneway=yes as outside normal service, trains can run in either direction across any track pending clearance from the transit authority, so it's been the general consensus among the community that all tracks in the sydney area (on the sydney trains/intercity network) should not be marked as oneway=yes. There's precedence for this when someone tried to modify the Brisbane rail network in the same way, if you'd like me to find that for you, but I hope my comment will be enough. I'd be happy to discuss this further on the OpenStreetMap World Discord if you'd prefer. Thanks, Chris.

Hi Kyle, just looking at The Northern Road/M12 intersection that you changed (-33.85700/150.69591), we don't map to lanes in the way that you've added and the "square" layout that I originally had mapped was in fact correct. Would you mind reverting this part? The tagging also appears to be incorrect/inconsistent with the rest of the under construction segments (though physically built), and should be kept as "under construction". Thanks, Chris.

Hi again, sorry to bother. I was able to confirm the existence of one of these roads with newer imagery (ESRI) so I also updated the alignment. Thanks again.
changeset/127995871

Hi there, I just wanted to request a source for this addition as the imagery you used (Bing) doesn't appear to show this infrastructure. Thanks!

Because that document is from 2019 and all of its contents have already been applied/updated in OpenStreetMap when it was released. This change was unnecessary as the neighbourhood name has not changed.

Hi there. This area is still colloquially known as Jordan Springs East, hence the neighbourhood node in place of suburb, so I wanted to request justification for this edit as it seems improper? The name is only colloquially known and is referred to by the developer of the area but isn't part of the NSW GNB database, but we're discussing in the OSM World Discord currently whether it would just be better to move the current Jordan Springs suburb node closer to the centre of the suburb bounds instead.

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.