not sure what you mean by symbol? Maybe you mean tag?

I added the sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking tag to way/1408273600 which is probably the best way to tag a "steep rock" section that you need to use your hands to navigate through.

looks good, but just a minor note that instead of deleting node/12119421701 and creating a new one next to it, you could just move the existing one to improve the location and update any tags you need. This is based on good practice documented at osm.wiki/Good_practice#Keep_the_history

hi why did you change https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/451869895 to not:operator:wikidata=Q5260271 I assume it's from the iD suggestion, perhaps you clicked the wrong button?

I also just did changeset/168286708 since I got sick of people changing these one at a time through iD tag suggestions.

I don't have any local knowledge I was just going by the fact that you named it as "Woolwich baths" in your changeset comment but the name was missing.

Though I checked Bing Streetside (which we can use) and it does show the name signposted https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=-33.840041~151.1689&lvl=17&dir=98.562&style=x&v=2&sV=1 so I've gone ahead and updated the name.

any reason to not set name=Woolwich Baths?

We don't usually tag where it's safe/no safe to cross since this is quite subjective, and regardless the footpaths and existing crossings are already well mapped here, so there's no reason to place crossing=no along the way like this.

I saw that thanks. I think around where Kathmandu is is the furthest the shop part goes, but that's okay.

Agree with nevw, better to use access=private. Though it's unclear to me from the imagery if this path does join up, so I've re-added the private driveway access in changeset/168116099 marking it as access=private.

Thanks. Regarding way/1371681902/history this is what created note/4570090 for but I forgot to map it.

I don't think highway=path is correct, I've retagged it as man%20made=wildlife%20crossing and I've been using wildlife_crossing=rope_bridge though the values aren't well defined nor have much use https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/wildlife_crossing#values

See the suburb which already has those wikidata/wikipedia tags relation/3697552

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1138446 is for the suburb Centennial Park, so the prior https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q61721649 was indeed correct. Furthermore the wikipedia page you added is for the suburb.

I've fixed these both now.

There's also building=airport_terminal has 200 uses https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/building=airport_terminal though not documented on the wiki, and seems like other terminal buildings also use building=transportation.

osm.wiki/Any_tags_you_like suggests that it's okay to start inventing new tags if there's no good existing tag, indeed this is how new tags come about. People start using them and eventually as the usage is refined they get documented as in-use, or they go through a proposal and get documented as approved.

I can't see any glaring issues with `privacy=limited` in this case.

In any case note=* is used to inform other mappers but in this case description=* would be better as that's for informing map users.

I'll update this to restore the privacy tag but also convert the note to a description.

how can you tell from imagery that these are all water storage, could they possibly be other kinds of silo? eg. for grain?

+ it would be more accurate to use source:geometry since actually the source was the person who mapped it as a node prior to you. You can also leave off the source tag and instead rely on the changeset level source.

Please ensure you retain any other tags on the node, in this case it had historic=yes.

some information was lost here, before we had address 86B and then address 2/68 but you've replaced both with just 68B.

If you're not sure which applies to what best to leave the two address nodes as they are and only move the building=yes tag along to the building. I've fixed this up. If you're just working remotely probably best to leave the addresses and just change the building=yes tag from the node to the new way.

I've updated this in changeset/167911590

I've reverted this change.

I've changed the network and operator based on my prior comment.