Thanks for your updated to Central, this was something we were tracking/planning in the #oceania OSM Discord for a while now, so we really appreciate this. I thought i'd comment here as well to invite you to the Discord as we'd love to have you be part of our community. We're very active and are able to answer any questions or anything you may have when mapping, etc... We hope you'll consider it. https://discord.gg/openstreetmap

Fantastic! Those curves look like butter. I did want to make one note though, and it's that often TfNSW themselves add alignment of station amenities (including platforms) so I wouldn't really recommend touching their alignment unless you have a definite source that would be comparable to TfNSW's own data 👀

Hi Reiner,
Glad my response was of benefit to you.

A few things I would like to reiterate though - OpenStreetMap is a database, not a renderer. We do not map things/add data for things to be rendered for any specific renderer. Our jobs are to add as much detail as we can, wherever possible. Whether or not footway=crossing is rendered is irrelevant to the mission of OpenStreetMap.

If something exists in the real world and we can map it, we will map it.

I wanted to show you this project, it's a german micro mapping renderer that takes all its data from OpenStreetMap, and I wanted to show you this as it's what is possible when you enter such rich data like using footway=crossing.
https://strassenraumkarte.osm-berlin.org/?map=micromap#19/52.47387/13.44007

Also re: oneway=no, foot=yes, etc... even if the default value for a tag is inferred, manually specifying it means it was surveyed and adds valuable information to the OSM data set. I believe another user mentioned this in the other changeset's comments.

I'll ask @aharvey to revert your changesets as he has good experience with it as a DWG member.

Thanks again for your contributions,
Chris.

Hi again, thanks for your willingness to understand from our perspective. Regarding a few things you've said, I'll break them up a bit so it's easier for me to respond to, and maybe for you to understand or to translate should you need (depending on your English proficiency).

For sidewalks, you're correct in that footways aren't streets, they're foot *paths*. They're usually built adjacent or will always connect to a road at some end, and are only for foot traffic. You can get more specific in its design and intention when adding footway=sidewalk (refers to its intention, i.e. following the contour of the street, is usually mapped separately and often with sidewalk=* tagging on the road itself), as well as footway=crossing (the physical part of the street that the path crosses), etc...

Under your link for highway=crossing, it is true that this is for nodes specifically, but when micromapping, there is also highway=footway + footway=crossing, (footway=crossing) where you can map the span of road that is used for the pedestrian crossing and specify type (zebra, marked, unmarked, traffic_signals, etc.), and this is considered de-facto in Australia, where you tag highway=crossing on the node (intersection of the road and the footpath), and footway=crossing on the way (way intersecting the road, bounded by the kerb). Both are used in Australia in conjunction with one-another. Usually ways that are just plain highway=footway with a crossing node are seen as outdated and we generally update those with the appropriate kerb boundary, way for the section of road the crossing takes up, and the node on the intersection of the two.

Regarding the pedestrian area around Darling Harbour, I think the maxspeed was a left over from when road traffic was allowed on Pyrmont Bridge, but emergency vehicles can still use the bridge and some of the pedestrian area, so I believe that is why it was left (and think it should stay for this reason).

There's a lot of local contextual items around Sydney and Australia as a whole, so please do ask us if you have any questions or before you make any major changes in the OSM Discord server (https://discord.gg/openstreetmap) under #oceania, or the Oceania mailing list. We'd be more than happy to help you.

If you'd like to go ahead with reverting the two offending changesets, I'd also be more than happy to help you re-add any of your correct changes or fix things up that may get mixed up in the edit.

Thanks,
Chris.

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.