I doubt you went there considering Covid. I have checked street level images and I can't find any legible signs in street level imagery. Please give details with if possible URL's

Hi, this and the previous 2 changesets are about adding access =private
What is your source? I doubt you went there considering Covid. In the previous 2 you mention signage. I cant find any legible signs in street level imagery. Please give details with if possible URL's

Hi, yes your terminology is fine. Yes I understand that there is a coastal path made up of inconsistently tagged segments. Common sense indicates that the segments very likely have the same legal status. But what, foot bike or shared? You say that your source data included street level imagery. What else did it include? Note that Google Street View cannot be used.

Thanks for the reply. What was the "virtual ride"? Did it include street level imagery? "inconsistencies of some of the tags ... hence were updated to suit." What was inconsistent with what? Updated to suit what?

Hi, I am curious, Way: 657874126 in New Zealand, 3 months ago, it seems unlikely that you were there considering Covid, What was your source for bicycle=designated foot=designated highway=cycleway

Hi HighRouleur. Thanks for further clarifying your understanding of the law. This is probably a discussion best held on the talk-au list rather than here, because of its complexity. You say "unless there is specific signage to indicate that bikes are permitted, then bikes are not permitted" Can you give more information on this? Was the advice verbal or written? Is there a URL that you can give? Then there is the issue of whether OSM should stick to ground verifiable facts and leave the interpretation of law to the routing software. Your readiness to engage in discussion is appreciated, thanks, but please do not do more mass retaggings till you have a consensus.

OK, good description, thanks. But it doesn't appear to be between a building and a road but between playing fields and a road. And part of it wraps around the oval and is not in a road related area. You haven't answered whether you have recently been there. And the 56 other changes need documentation. Are they all located between the front of a house or building and a road? Have you been there recently? I appreciate that you are replying to comments, thank you for that. But I request that you stop this kind of retagging till you have reached a concensus with the mapping community.

Hi HighRouleur. Most if not all of your foot/cycle changes are not in "road related areas" (See rules 11-13 of the Road Rules) and not covered by the Victorian no riding on footpaths rule. It is possible that I am wrong, I am not a lawyer, but there is sufficient doubt about this to ask you to stop and engage seriously with the mapping community. Please stop retagging and resolve your outstanding disputes.

Thanks for the reply but I can't see any change in the tags, unchanged from about 12 days ago.
access private
bicycle no
the access tag is ok as you describe it but I think the bicycle tab should go

Hi. Ive just checked the first way/903991686. You have changed bicycle designated
foot designated
highway cycleway
To highway footway
Your description was "Changing shared paths to foothpaths as they had been incorrectly assigned." On what basis did you decide that they were incorrectly assigned? Are there Mapillary photos for example? Did you physically go there? Was there signage?

Hi. Please pause retagging paths, footways, cycleways etc until you have reached a consensus with the mapping community. You have a number of unresolved issues raised in a number of changesets by a number of different people. Thanks.

Hi, we value your contributions, its people like you, giving their time, that makes OSM work. But you have comments from about 10 different commenters covering a number of issues. None of these issues have been resolved yet. Please engage with the mapping community in a timely manner and work towards a consensus. We regret that if we do not hear from you there is a risk that your work could be deleted. Thanks.

Hi, see the warning message, you have failed to connect these roads to the wider road system. If you need help to do this ask here

Hi. what is your reason for tagging the vehicular entry into Wilson Botanic Park Way: 779286923 bicycle=no ?

Hi. What is your source of information that Browns lane is closed to bicycles? Presumably not that it is a footpath because it seems to allow motor vehicles?

Hi, i see you have changed your tagging, thanks, but I doubt that you should leave the bicycle=no tag. The way i read it now, its private access but those with the right to enter can use any transport mode except bicycle. Delete the bicycle tag?

Hi, thanks, I see you using changeset comments in your next changeset, good, much easier to follow.
I presume this changeset is like the treatment plant, you are acting on knowledge that its private? If access is limited maybe use access= xxx rather than mode specific tags? Or is this open to all modes of transport except bicycles?

Thanks, its a strange one, Ill have to wait for the covid limit to lift and go and look. My guess is that all the mode specific tags should be removed and one access= tag should remain.

The Eastern Treatment Plant allows motor vehicles, foot traffic and horses but not bicycles? What is your source?

Hi, you have tagged a number of minor residential roads service=driveway even though they serve a number of properties eg. Way: Lilliput Lane (203549225) has about 10 properties. The wiki says "a driveway is a minor service road leading to a specific property"