I know I use it all the time too, even though it's not signposted for bicycles.

With respect to https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/629142495 last time I was here there was a bicycle dismount sign -> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/UnMwUempYTkOa1uAti79vg

Is that sign no longer there? As you changed this from bicycle=dismount to bicycle=designated.

Oh yeah I missed that. Yes that implies that it's some kind of bicycle infrastructure and bicycles are allow. Thanks for confirming that.

In your change you've made Arthur Street continue further along past the intersection but according to the signage on the ground https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/Sd8o0YzS4Az6az1JTMaE5Q the road name changes at the intersection, so I've reverted this change.

Also on the footbridge I couldn't see any signage that says it's a cycleway.

Yeah I can see this was only you're second edit. I certainly don't want to discourage you from more editing, please keep it up.

It's best practice to map what's on the ground osm.wiki/Good_practice#Map_what.27s_on_the_ground so generally what other maps say doesn't matter much compared to what information can be determined from on the ground.

According to https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/c0t-T4YQyaBPZt5Hugnj6g the pedestrian and bicycle lanes are segregated, but not physically separated, segregated=*. Has that changed recently or is the on the ground the same as that older Mapillary image? If it hasn't change recently we'll need to revert this back to a single way with segregated=yes.

This looks good, according to https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/eH7jFyeMbYDtnxlBUu6fgw it is physically separated so it's good that you've mapped it with a separate way. You could also update the road https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/34282299 to remove the bicycle tags which aren't really correct as it's not a counter flow cyclelane, it's a separate path.

Keep in mind that highway=cycleway is for a physically separated path, if just separated from the road by paint, it's a cycleway=lane tag on the road way, not a seperate way as highway=cycleway. I know it can be hard to model this one though since it's quite a complex junction and changes between physical separation, but from the imagery, way/738071033 shouldn't be a separate way as there is no physical separation.

Did you want to fix this?

PS. The placement tag placement=* is used to say where the geometry is, so that when rendered with lanes they align eg. from JOSM with the Lane Attributes style https://imgur.com/ilAgBQx

Hi, could you point out where this path is signposted for bicycles? I couldn't see a sign from my Mapillary photos and bicycle=designated should only be used where signposted. It's a stronger indication of you're allowed to use this way over just bicycle=yes. It certainly looks on the ground like a footpath or generic path that you can cycle on rather than a cycleway or shared path. I'm not saying I'm right here, just looking for more information about your change.

Hi thanks for trying to improve the data here, unfortuantly the correct changes were mingled with some not so correct changes, so I've reverted the changeset and then subsequently re-instated the good changes.

My reasoning is:
1. https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/503996837 was unnecessarily deleted, per osm.wiki/Good_practice#Keep_the_history the history should be retained by editing existing features where possible.
2. https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/738069132 highway=cycleway is for a physically separated cycleway see highway=cycleway#When_not_to_use, in this case it's a cycle lane and is tagged as such.

I've used operator:abn in the past, but maybe that should be operator:ref:abn

I moved the remaining tags across from the node to the way now in changeset/76033258 per osm.wiki/Good_practice#One_feature.2C_one_OSM_element

No worries. As I said I'm not too fused either way. Just adding the religion tag is good, that wasn't the issue, it's about where the amenity=place_of_worship tag should be, should it be on the church building only or on the whole grounds. Either way I think is fine, it's just that the wiki kind of implies it shouldn't be on the grounds.

It looks like the amenity=place_of_worship tag is now lacking entirely, so I've added that back in now.

When I walked past here today I didn't see a comma in between "...Church Roseville" on the sign, but I'm just nit picking here.

Please where possible retain the history, I don't see why relation/10162010/history needed to be deleted? You could have just updated the existing relation.

See osm.wiki/Good_practice#Keep_the_history

According to landuse=religious the way I had it before was considered more accepted, but I'm not too fussed either way...

Are you sure this is not more like a stream than a river, downstream is marked as a stream. (the edit in AU)

Overall this is okay, but you should separate out the address number from the street, add the +61 prefix to the phone number.

I've fixed this now in changeset/75746596