Hi,

Please don't delete the public_transport=platform nodes as these indicate which track the platform applies to.

Thanks.

Hi,

Please don't delete the public_transport=platform. They are needed for PTv2 tagging.

Thank you.

Hi,

Do you have a source for this name? It's called Junior/Senior Campus on their web site.

Or is this actually "Wanniassa School"? ie: both parts should be combined. In which case the two areas should be combined.

Hi,

"Canberra Airport" is not the name of the terminal building. Canberra Airport is already mapped: way/456858759

One of the general rules is that there should be only one OSM object per real-world entity.

Hi,

I'm not sure what you are trying to map with highway=motorway access=no and bicycle=yes. Do you mean there are now motorways in Sydney that you can only ride bicycles on?

The access tagging is correct. What it is saying is:

1. All classes are permissive (ie: till the owner says no).
2. Except foot, which has a legal right to access (owner can't say no to foot traffic)
3. Except motor vehicles which don't have access (owner says no). Also prevented by defaults for highway=path.

The problem is going to be with Osmose not correctly parsing the tags.

Hi,

mtb=no is not really a tag. The mtb tagging is in the form mtb:scale=value

This way is tagged bicycle=yes which means you can ride your mtb here.

Unless this track is specifically sign posted as not being for cyclists then this is the correct tagging.

If routing software is having difficulties with two parallel paths then that is a problem the software developers need to fix ie: no tagging for the renderer.

This changeset has been reverted. Please read and follow the guidelines in the future (osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines).

Hi,

I've reverted you change here because Old Parliament House is mapped as a multi-polygon and as a result the tagging should go on the relation:

relation/1198

and not on the ways that make up the relation.

Thanks.

Changeset comment should have said: Adding Snowy River NP and attached protected areas. I changed "State Forest" to natural=wood as it covers mostly NP.

Changeset comment should have said: adjusting boundaries of Croajingolong National Park and other protected areas that share common boundaries.

The road reserve is not part of Heathcote National Park. You can check this for yourself here:

https://geo.seed.nsw.gov.au/Public_Viewer/index.html?viewer=Public_Viewer&locale=en-AU&runWorkflow=AppendLayerCatalog&CatalogLayer=SEED_Catalog.73.NPWS%20Estate

What source did you use for:
relation/3311243

?

Is there a source for:

way/307075076

?

Spurce for:

way/298737477

?

What's the source for:
way/435092679

?

OK. Think I've worked out how the problem happened. These are tagged landuse=conservation which is pretty uncommon. I'm going to have to go back and review all of the parks I've put in and check to make sure that they are not duplicates.

I don't know what the best way of tagging the part names would be. As far as I can tell from searching the sa.gov.au is that they refer to the such-and-such in Kenneth Stirling Conservation Park or the such-and-such unit of Kenneth Stirling Conservation Park. Other people seem to just use the term "Filsell Hill" or "Wottons Scrub". Maybe the way to go is locality names?

Don't understand the point you are making. It already is a relation with six separate areas. This is based on https://data.sa.gov.au/data/dataset/conservation-reserve-boundaries from about a week ago. Are you saying that they have changed it since then?

With 10m resolution you can't expect much in the way of detail. I was suggesting that it would be useful for determining the presence or not of streets. The infra-red view is particularly good for finding recently cleared areas (which around cities is where the new housing is going in).

For future reference: if you can't see something on the imagery have a look at the Sentinel imagery: https://tinyurl.com/y8f6erqr New housing estates are big enough to show up. Good enough to tell fake/real.