Hey I noticed you deleted the barrier I just added at https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/node/6505084855.

I surveyed this Sunday and the block was there, did you notice it was removed in the last two days?

I noticed in this changeset you've removed access=no from the T-Way. I've reverted that change since we need access=no to say no one can access it, except bus (bus=designated). Otherwise routers will try to take private vehicles through it.

No worries, thanks for confirming! I'll make further changes then. Maybe if you had split an existing way then that could explain the lost history, and why it is showing you as the initial creator of this data, sorry about the confusion.

Thanks for fixing your changeset comment here, it was helpful for me to understand where this change came from.

Hi for way/655201703/,
1. Where did you get the maxspeed=50 from? I wouldn't have though the maxspeed from the road actually applies to the cycleway as well.
2. Where did you get the maxspeed:advisory=30 from? I couldn't find this signposted anywhere.
3. I'll change the surface from asphalt to concrete, as it appears to be concrete.
4. I couldn't find any passing places, what's your reason for the tag passing_places=*
5. cycleway=shared, the wiki explains this tag as being obsolete now in favour of segregated, per Its use with cycleways is now considered obsolete: purpose-built cycleways are assumed to be shared.

I've made some changes but will await some feedback from you before making further changes.

Hey I noticed you just deleted the parking area at way/677568464 I'm reinstating that as I verified yesterday it's still on the ground, and am also uploading Mapillary imagery. I was in the process of fixing it to be surface, but I got many conflicts in JOSM from your changeset (my fault for leaving it open too long), so will redo afresh.

Hi, what were you needing help with? It looks like you made some paths here, but then deleted them?

oh sorry you fixed it in this changeset! Thank you.

It looks like you've dragged the node too far... changeset/70432858 can you fix it?

you can add lcn=yes on the way if it's part of a signposted bicycle route.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Piper St" shows up on the map?

I checked in more detail and those deleted buildings do appear to be duplicates, so deleting those was a good change. eg. https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/615453803 and https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/615449961

I still think having bicycle=designated + foot=designated on a highway=cycleway/footway is useful, as it makes it clear that both modes are designated, it's also extra redundancy that if the way is changed from cycleway to footway or vice versa the fact that both modes are designated remains.

No worries at all. I hope I haven't discouraged you from editing more.

I think the error was due to the steps here way/305800760 needed to be tagged as a bridge going over the canal, I've made that change so the editor doesn't complain any more.

I've asked the Data Working Group to look into this, since your source nearmap.com is a commercial imagery supplier and does not (since the OSM license change) make their imagery available to OSM for tracing. To me it's not clear from their TOS if you as a customer of Nearmap can derive information from their imagery and 100% own it free from any IP restrictions, which is why I've asked DWG for advise.

Is this edit part of an organised or directed mapping activity per https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines ?

No worries, actually it looks like the underground parts are already tagged location=underground. Is that not sufficient?

Sorry but I've reverted your change as it removed the car park as well as lost tags such as wikipedia/wikidata. I've expanded the mall a bit further into the car park as an approximation to ensure Kathmandu is part of the mall.

+1

I just migrated to the existing tags from the node to your new way, to ensure we only have one object for the school.

It looks like only part of this is covered, at least the end at Alexandra Canal appears open, are you right if we split this way, so that open part isn't tagged as a tunnel?

Could you elaborate on why this change is needed? These are bays so they need natural=bay tag to say what type of water body they are.

Could you elaborate on why this change is needed? These are bays so they need natural=bay tag to say what type of water body they are.

looks good