Hey I see you've migrated this node to the campus boundary, that's the right thing to do. :+1

Hey, I did the walk out to Asgard Head, however I could only find a track out to the point a bit to the east of where you placed the lookout, see way/629482923 do you think it's okay if I delete your track as I couldn't find it?
...though I could have missed it..

I agree with SK53, this should be reverted for those reasons.

Hi, what is this mean to be? What's FTTX?

It looks like Hornsby Park already exists at way/12011375

I've changed this to driveway.

I'm tempted to agree to a revert, these ferry routes are already complicated and I think splitting to add the maxspeed just adds unnecessary complexity when that maxspeed is more appropriate on the water area.

I've fixed it up now, but for future reference there's no preset in iD so you can scroll down to the list of tags and edit manually.

Did you want to add it back?

Why remove natural=cape? natural=cape seems to match. Maybe old_name is a better tag?

I think it would be better to add the maxspeed on the water area as it applies to all craft, not just ferries. It also avoids needing to split these ways which makes editing more complicated.

Looks like this change resulted in many overlapping streets, which Warin fixed up in changeset/62839490 do you know what caused this?

Are you sure there's a camp ground so close to the street here?

I'm pretty sure these places don't have Chinese names.

I've deleted the tourist=attraction since there is not attraction here.

The viewpoint isn't connected to any track are you sure it's in the right location?

I don't think it's going to go well camping in that marsh... are you sure the location is right?

+1

Though I changed that relation to except=bus since from the imagery it says Bus Only which excludes taxis http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/using-roads/buses/bus-lanes.html

Unless the imagery is outdated?

Hi there, I've changed that park to a leisure=pitch leisure=pitch

Generally I agree re sharing the same way, but in this case it does look like the land cover and land use line up.

It comes down to the principle of mapping how it's being use at the moment on the ground, not where the legal parcels extend to/where it could go in the future.

> I'll try to take a wander up there next week and see what is actually on the ground.

I'm happy to join you on that if you want, it's a short cycle for me.

I'm not 100% sure but it *might* make sense to use barrier=retaining_wall osm.wiki/Tag%3Abarrier%3Dretaining_wall on a shared way between the adjoining pedestrian areas, or perhaps using a different level or layer tag is enough to know they are on different levels.

I've fixed it up now, it's just highway=footway I think this was made more confusing due to https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2018-September/012072.html the outcome of that is to change the ID preset translation back to the american term "sidewalk".

See oneway=*#Sub_keys_.2F_exceptions that would be oneway=yes, oneway:bus=no