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

Hi, the two streets you edited here (Harris and Glossop Streets in St. Marys) to have cycleway:left=track don't appear to have any such features in reality (surveyed yesterday + Maxar imagery). They also don't appear on the TfNSW Cycleway Finder. Do you have a source for these? Thanks

Data from lendlease can't be used as it's copyrighted. Unless you received the information in the form of a pamphlet or other means for it to classify as "public knowledge", it can't be used.

Also you added some street names but didn't list a source, would you be able to provide a source for them? They're not available on the base map, nor does it look like you used that.

Hey, it looks like you used outdated imagery for this area causing regression of some data, specifically the removal of a road (maybe construction access?) that is visible on Maxar imagery. Maxar is the most up-to-date imagery in eastern Australia as of January of this year.
Thanks!

Forgot to add source. Source is Maxar and NSW Base Map.

Hi Warin, thanks for spotting that one.
Fixed in changeset/32991116.

Changes discussed in changeset/132782477

Thanks for the heads up about the traffic conditions around Westmead.

I've gone ahead and updated the traffic conditions around Westmead Hospital which includes the separation and duplication of Hawkesbury Road and part of Hainsworth Street. I've also added crossings and turn restrictions that I was able to gather from a YouTube video we have permission to source data from, and have updated the bus stop locations based on TfNSW data (which we also have permission to use).

@Warin61 I removed the bus route relations from this portion of road as they needed to be updated anyway. You can refer to the link that @lyjjimmy included in his comment for the correct route in order to fix it.

changeset/132925426

Have a nice night fellas!

Looking at your changeset, the broken sections were for a section that I had not made modifications to... Thank you regardless...

Also, out of the hundreds of bus routes in Sydney, I'd like to thank you for maintaining 2 of them.

Hi Warin, Thanks for noticing this.

We're currently discussing the removal of bus route relations in the Sydney area as the majority are unmaintained and have last been updated more than 3 years ago... This route was last updated 4 years ago by you actually.

I'm looking at the relation in iD and it seems fine to me, can you point out where/which way has broken the relation?

Thanks,
Chris.

Hi, was this surveyed? You don't name a source and I can't see it on the imagery you used. Thanks.

I'm mostly just armchair mapping from information sourced from public documents and as much recent aerial imagery as I have access to, so if you are able to survey and notice anything that doesn't match up with my changes, please go ahead and update things to the best of your knowledge 👍🏻

Hi, I didn't include the pedestrian way from Bond to Bridge as there's already adequate sidewalk coverage, with plans to build out the sidewalk and remove the former vehicle lanes completely later this year. I haven't been able to survey Market to Park but I haven't touched that section as it was done by someone else, but there is access from the hotel laneway from Pitt down to Park that I believe still exists to traffic. If you want to add a pedestrian area through the centre of the tram tracks from Market to Park however, I wouldn't be opposed to it (so long as you leave where George Street comes out onto Market Street as that's where there is still a traffic lane).
Regarding access=no, foot still is designated foot=yes, but you can specify if you want motor_vehicle=no, emergency=no, etc... + foot=yes instead if you'd like rather than a blanket access=no + foot=yes.

It definitely looks like both from above, it's a short wooded (but still wet) area. You can see on bing imagery. What do you think I should do in this case?

Note: Large sections of the M4 were out of date since ramp meters and widening has occurred, this changeset improves alignment, lane count, adds new features, etc.
As this motorway is a major feature, I'm happy to respond to any comments anyone may have regarding any issues.

Phone number isn't in correct format
(02) 9826 1305
->
+61-2-9826-1305