Hi - nice sidewalks. I'd consider marking them with footway=sidewalk as well (pavement preset in iD) seeing as they run parallel with the roads
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/99895326

It appears that numerous paths in this changeset do not exist.

Yeah I don't usually merge ways anymore.
Routers can appropriately handle it if they have the same name (or are part of the same larger route relation).
It's often needed to split roads in general for tagging differences (surface, width, etc), so multiple ways for the same road shouldn't be thought of as inherently wrong, IMO.

node/8427665783 has irrelevant tags.
Also it's seen as good practice to try and preserve element history (instead of deleting and re-creating like you have done)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/99347840

Why delete the entire relation instead of removing 573328874 as a via? That would have been more correct.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/99344829

Hi, unpaved is a general "I don't know what this surface is, but it's not paved" tag. If you did a survey here you could make it more precise
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/99270621

Fixed issues where buildings were named "house" instead of being building=house

Hi, for completeness you can mark the node where the crossing and residential road meet as an unmarked crossing as well. (not overly important for unmarked crossings, but if it were marked it means road traffic will know about the crossing, and routers may take that into account)

Also good to see you're not connecting the footpaths/roads to the landuse!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/98908060

Nice! I was meaning to do this one, wasn't sure of geometry though.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/98837822

Hi, alignment on all of these building imports are incorrect. Please use DCS NSW Imagery for NSW alignment.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/98773778

Would this technically be a driveway instead of an unclassified road?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/98676953

That makes sense then. I didn't see anything on your profile so didn't assume you worked for them. If I did a wiki search I would have figured that part out.

The TfNSW GTFS data was from here: https://opendata.transport.nsw.gov.au/dataset/timetables-complete-gtfs. I imagine if I pulled it down again today I would see the change.

All good :)

Resolved in 98628064

Resolved in changeset/98627396

What is the source for the bus stop name changes? You haven't listed a source at all.

The latest TfNSW GTFS data still shows the previous names.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/98612575

Is P7 no longer staff parking? You added access=yes, implying no permit required
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/98466433

For this one I think the correct fix would have been to mark the footways as bridges, as the stream doesn't seem to fit the definition of a culvert to me: tunnel=culvert
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/98442838

Hi, `layer=-1` implies that the building is underground. The correct resolution to the iD warning would be to mark the ways as covered for the section they go through the building
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/98437759

Hi! Just letting you know phone numbers should be using E.164 (I don't think spaces matter), e.g. +612 4955 8525
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/98434786

Hi, you deleted a basketball court to expand a second one to cover both. It's recommended to tag them individually as they are indeed distinct courts.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/98335140