1. aded note to avoid deletion as an imaginary feature

    Closed
    #124633031 0 1 0 0
  2. survey

    Closed
    #123825492 1 0 0 0
  3. advises guide

    Closed
    #123706940 0 1 0 0
  4. spicers guides confirm aboriginal name is the name

    Closed
    #123593192 0 1 0 0
  5. spicers guides confirm aboriginal name is the name

    Closed
    #123593108 0 1 0 0
  6. spicers guides confirm aboriginal name is the name

    Closed
    #123592926 0 1 0 0
  7. from sitevisit

    Closed
    #123145877 24 2 0 0
  8. change permissive to private, a better fit to management vehicles

    Closed
    #121516094 0 6 0 0
  9. Area Chief Ranger in PM tome advises that east of the creek and Red Gum Trail is management vehicles and walkers only

    Closed
    #121515744 2 8 0 4
  10. add todo

    Closed
    #121312590 0 1 0 0
  11. Ped crossing visible in Mapillary but sat images are not up to date crossing lights seem foot only, sorry the crossing is not connected, I have no idea where the path goes

    Closed
    #121312317 3 0 0 0
  12. Crossing lights on Mapillary are cycle/foot, change to path, change crossing type to lights

    Closed
    #121311965 0 1 0 0
  13. Restoring to previous state, but highway=trunk. If unhappy, please discuss at talk-au

    Closed
    #121046678 0 2 0 1
  14. Restoring to previous state, last edit was justified by a lack of signage. Absence of signage permitting bikes is insufficient on its own. If unhappy, please discuss at talk-au

    Closed
    #120998928 0 1 0 0
  15. see Changeset: 119223362

    Closed
    #120996687 0 1 0 0
  16. Restoring to previous state, last edit was justified by a lack of signage. Absence of signage permitting bikes is insufficient on its own. There is signage. If unhappy, please discuss at talk-au

    Closed
    #120996630 0 2 0 0
  17. Restoring to previous state, last edit was justified by a lack of signage. Absence of signage permitting bikes is insufficient on its own. There is signage. Residential and commercial properties generally do not front onto it, it is not a sidewalk. If unh

    Closed
    #120996467 0 1 0 1
  18. sole reason given for last edit was there being no signage. This is insufficient reason on its own. There is signage. This is not a sidewalk. If you are unhappy, please discuss at talk-au.

    Closed
    #120996442 0 1 0 0
  19. absence of signage is insufficient reason, this is not a sidewalk

    Closed
    #120996238 0 4 0 1
  20. Restoring to previous state, last edit was justified by a lack of signage. Absence of signage permitting bikes is insufficient on its own. There is signage albeit ambiguous. Residential and commercial properties generally do not front onto it, it is not a

    Closed
    #120995852 0 1 0 0