Hi, welcome to OSM!
The crossing looks good. For the bridge, you accidentally marked it as having 0 lanes (i.e. not traversable).
Should it be 2 lanes? (one forward, one backward)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107171634

What did you use to align these buildings? I can't match them to any aerial imagery
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107009210

Appears reverted

Hi, there's no physical separation around way/952324038, so it probably shouldn't have been a separate way from 952324032
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/106032387

Looks good. It was my understand that 'Tags such as addr:country=*, addr:city=* are often redundant as features inside administrative boundaries (when mapped) "inherit" their attributes'. Though it's not strictly incorrect to have them
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105878874

I would say it's a reduction in information, given footway=sidewalk is an approved tag. See footway=sidewalk
("also known as a footpath in Australia")

Hi - is there a reason you are removing the sidewalk tag?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105413409

How did you determine these are fords?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105395185

Hi. When aligning buildings, you're meant to align to the footprint on the ground, not the sky. (the imagery you used is skewed and misaligned)
Please use DCS NSW Imagery in this area for checking alignment
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105392187

Hi, you accidentially dragged a fence 200m west in this changeset. I have reverted that particular error in changeset/105198996
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105195993

Hi, do you mean this dataset by TfNSW? I can't find one by the name you listed. https://opendata.transport.nsw.gov.au/dataset/speed-zones

Hi! Pressing 'Q' when a building is selected will square its corners
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/104989748

`layer=-1` on way/945320472 doesn't seem correct. That's implying it's underground, no?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105057997

You left some construction tags on roads when removing the highway=construction

Fixed issue in 104876355 where the bridge got disconnected from the road

Looks good RE: not putting the lowered kerbs on the footway but instead the crossing way (for people not using the crossing to not get the kerb), but you missed doing that for node/8695766576
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/104769258

Hi, that source link does not work. So I can't tell if we're able to use that information or not, depends on the copyright.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/104575792

Ensuring the refs are populated for building codes. "UON" is not strictly the name of the university, but there may be an applicable tag for the area as a whole.
The problem you're trying to solve sounds like an issue with the search program you are using instead of the tags themselves.

Hi,
The street is not "UON", and I would image the refs belong in `ref` instead of `addr:unit`.

As for suburb and state, they are inherited from boundary relations - so not strictly required.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/104478969

Hi, OSM is not a playground for you to test your software. Please don't constantly change tags on a way.

The road itself has no access restrictions - it is the lift gate that has access restrictions.