No worries, I've fixed that. iD was warning about outdated operator:type syntax.

Thanks, yeah I'm just working off drone imagery, so I don't have any local knowledge. I did suspect it was just a roof, in that case it's still best to retain it as building=roof then any sport pitches can still be mapped inside it.

Thanks.
Regarding https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/224362496 where you changed the operator:wikidata I don't understand that. Is the operator not NSW Department of Education? https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5260271 ?

hi I noticed you deleted the school building https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/1362794618 this was visible on my 2025-02-23 imagery.

The DCS imagery here is from 2022 so quite outdated and shows the pitch you've mapped.

Bing shows a building but it's different to the new one I added from February 2025, so also outdated.

Esri World Imagery shows the building I mapped from my February 2025 imagery.

Are you sure that in the last two months the building, which was only recently built has been demolished and the original pitch from 2022 restored? Seems unlikely.

If there is only one outer to relation/19035292 it doesn't need to be a multipolygon relation and can be a simple way instead. I'll restore the original way https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/400690120 to retain the history but with the new expanded extent.

and thanks for fixing the brownfield area I added, I just saw the houses demolished, but I didn't realise it was for the park expansion https://www.krg.nsw.gov.au/Planning-and-development/Projects-and-current-works/St-Ives/Bedes-Forest-expansion-and-improvements

If it's not yet built, this section could be a landuse=construction

I had mapped node/12617115483 but you added node/12784980716 which is very close, I suspect it's a duplicate as unlikely there would be two crossings so close, I'll merge the two together.

Oh looks like from the note that it's deleting a way which is a member of a relation.

What's the iD editor issue?

This seems highly suspicious, how are these residences accessed by vehicle otherwise?

This is an artefact of the import, that different addresses may have the same location and these were imported as such.

https://gitlab.com/alantgeo/vicmap2osm/#stage-8---imported-addresses-sharing-the-same-location-manual-review

As part of the post import I created a MapRoulette challenge for people to help manually address these.

I checked street level imagery between 840 Traralgon Creek Road and 1000 Traralgon Creek Road and couldn't see any other signposted addresses in between, so unless we have any other information we con probably just delete 890 Traralgon Creek Road, what do you think?

Thanks, I've updated osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads#School_Zones to not that maxspeed:conditional is only needed where there is a reduction in speed, and in this case I'll add `hazard=school_zone` on these to avoid loosing the information about these as "school zones".

Looks good, thanks.

this key is experimental still, for this specific why do we need to specify 00:00-24:00 to me it just adds complexity and makes it even harder to enter the values, the surcharges are always going to be based on the whole day and not for only some hours of the day.

Thanks. Per osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Paths I'd go further and replace highway=track with disused:highway=track

the admin admin boundaries all along here seem shifted, it's not a huge deal but I think it's also fine to tweak by a meter to align with the property boundaries.

I don't know, but you can always check the live date in an editor (Edit). I'm not concerned with how it looks on the map, it's more about how it's represented in the data.

I posted this link earlier which documents different road classifications and tags osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads#Road_Hierarchy

2hu4u mentioned earlier it may take time for the map tiles to update. There may be style differences based on the tags used, residential, service, driveway or track, and then again based on the road surface tags and access tags.

how it appears depends on how consumers of OSM data choose to display it, I'm just concerned with how it's tagged here.

I've changed way/228339555 to driveway, since it's for access to the cottages, only past Wattle Cottage it becomes as land management track (eg. access to power lines, fire trails, forestry, farm roads)