Hi, did you mean to tag the house address with addr:housenumber=* instead of name=*
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/99989769

Hi, not sure if you meant to create tens of thousands of untagged nodes here? Quite a few of your past changesets are like this.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/99603128

whoops, yeah must have broken the relation, this was one of my early edits. My apologies and thanks for fixing

👉😎👉

Yeah that certainly seems like a better fit. I'll change this and the other one. Thanks

Yes, your edits are safely on the database and the amphitheatre track is marked as impassable past the closure. Not sure what routing service you're using, but often it takes time for these things (especially 3rd party apps, etc) to refresh their own database from the OSM master copy. So yeah, everything looks fine to me.

Hi, yeah that is usually certainly the case but I feel like this is still a grey area that the wiki hasn't encompassed well yet. Have you seen the discussion at: osm.wiki/Talk:Tag:natural%3Dvalley#Valley_as_relation.3F
I'm happy to change the "multipolygon" part if you think that's necessary, at least until we make the area bound for the valley. I just can't really see the point of duplicating the way with the same geometry though.

Thanks for your suggestions, yeah I added the multipolygon relations tentatively because I was planning on enclosing them in an area once we figure out what the watershed bounds are. I understand your point, but rather than removing the relation entirely, is there another relation type you suggest would be more appropriate? If not, I will just add the valley tags to that bit of the river as you suggest.

N.B. Nortons Creek is a part of Kanimbla valley going from the GNB description. https://proposals.gnb.nsw.gov.au/public/geonames/d41a70e6-2eae-4b1f-a198-045c47c52eff

a summary of the changes;
1. the area bounded by "Lidsdale State Forest" tagged with landuse=forest and nature reserve/protected area removed
2. actual tree areas (including pine plantations) tagged with natural=wood

Welcome to OSM and thanks for your edits, saves me having to go down the amphitheatre track myself. It's a bit unusual to see OSM mappers around this area so I was wondering - are you a local of the Blue Mountains? Hope you enjoy the newly updated map here.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/96673040

Thanks, definitely an improvement. I'll do any further refining on a smaller scale in future.

Whoops, yeah I keep forgetting to add that tag to passes. I'll keep it in mind. Cheers

Here's the relation for Jamison Valley I've come up with. relation/12107413

Whilst the GNB descriptions aren't the best, it is unlikely that there will be on-ground indicators to where a valley starts and stops (I say this as a local who went down into the Jamison and Kedumba valleys 2 weeks ago). Agree that we can do better than an arbitrary straight line between The Col and Kedumba Pass; but there is a well-defined ridge line that fairly clearly separates the catchment areas that roughly follows a straight line. Not saying all the valleys here can be mapped in this way, clearly it has to be looked at case-by-case. Alternatively, yes they could simply be mapped as points, but that's no fun and being ambitious in mapping is part of the spirit of OSM that you mention. I suggest to start off, we at least try mapping Jamison Valley bounds as a multipolygon - to me it looks pretty straightforward. I could have a crack at it and link the changeset here.

On further inspection, GNB has provided fairly rigid descriptions of valley bounds (example for way/889441951 is https://proposals.gnb.nsw.gov.au/public/geonames/d8218040-81e9-4828-aff8-e0db1d2797ad) -generally bounded by easily identifiable features such as escarpments and ridges, a lot of which already have existing ways. In this case perhaps they should be mapped as a multipolygon?

Yeah I think leaving as single nodes rather than ways would be much easier unless someone is prepared to trace catchment areas (which in turn are difficult to define). One example is that the Jamison Valley (way/889441951) and Kedumba Valley (not included in your edit) are part of the same larger valley, I suppose they are separated by Sublime Point Ridge but who really knows.

Thanks, yeah seeing as the river defines the bound it seems reasonable. My comment was mostly for osmcha watchers to explain any flags; I didn't unglue anything.

Thanks, I see now. The problem was that there are several boundary ways on top of each other in that spot and so I must have included the wrong one in the forest relation. I'll get onto the straight bits progressively - there's a lot to do. Cheers

Hey thanks for your comments. Did you mean to remove ALL the landcover/landuse information from that part of Lidsdale State Forest? I'm not sure I understand what your reasoning is. State forests have a harvest cycle over decades so they aren't dynamic with respect to the OSM database. Regardless of the administrative bound, the bounds of the *managed* portion of Lidsdale State Forest haven't changed in years from what I can see on the aerial imagery. In that case I don't think you should have deleted way/888019432 and the majority of way/888019420. By that logic all the tracks in this state forest should also be deleted? Your changes also don't seem to be consistent with the other state forests that are tagged as landuse=forest.

"I also render them differently" can you elaborate on what you mean?

Hi, "overtraced" I meant as a synonym of "overfitted" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfitting
I am all for detailed forest bounds -see my work in Kanimbla and Hartley area. Arbitrarily "joining the dots" between random isolated trees I don't believe is useful for OSM nor adds meaningful detail. In this case, the forest bound was crossing over houses and all kinds of things - it was not good quality geometry. I removed those nodes (rather savagely) because I was planning to redo the forest bound and residential area bound in a structured and orderly manner as I have done for some of the other towns up the mountain. The detail would have been added back by necessity.

Can you elaborate on what part of the forest relation was broken? I checked the relation for defects such as unclosed parts after I had finished my work and I did not see anything obvious.

Next time can you discuss on the changeset before reverting? As you are probably aware I am very active on OSM and would have given a quick reply. Cheers