I did a Mapillary survey, path is open so I removed the access=no.

I did a Mapillary survey just now, confirmed that a block is restricting vehicle access, but bicycle and pedestrian is still accessible, I've updated the area just now.

Hi, for https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/22978301 what does access=no mean?

Hi what's the access=no here for? If it's open, you can just leave off the access tag.

Hi, welcome to OSM. This section of light rail is electrically powered from the ground via APS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-level_power_supply. I've updated the wiki at electrified=* to note this value. I believe electrified=no should only be used for rail which is not powered and not the case here, so I've reverted this change.

Since it was created and last edited in 2012 if you couldn't find it probably okay to delete.

Hi there doesn't appear to be any park here based on the aerial imagery, so this change has been reverted. If that's not the case if you could help contribute some OpenStreetCam or Mapillary or photos of the area to confirm.

Actually way/679354513/history should have public_transport=station and way/34891023 should have railway=station per railway=station one is from the train network perspective and the other from the passenger perspective.

Hi welcome to OSM. For next time, the name should only be if the building/apartments have a proper name. If they don't have a name you can leave it out. The street number is not a name. See also name=*

I don't have any local knowledge here so can't comment on the specifics but highway=track does a good job of documenting the difference between highway=track and highway=residential and when each should be used.

Hi and welcome to OSM. In general if things exist on the ground then they can be added to OSM, that includes driveways on private property. For driveways you can add the tag service=driveway and to mark access as private then access=private could be added.

I've reverted your change to reinstate these driveways.

Also for way/279298841/history is there some signage which says bicycles are not allowed? Otherwise what's the reason for bicycle=no?

Also for way/173974614/history access=private already says it's a private driveway, so I'm not sure what bicycle=no means here? Is it needed?

Hi could you please add the attribution for this dataset to the Transport for NSW section at osm.wiki/Contributors this is required per the agreement that TfNSW signed osm.wiki/File:TfNSW_OSM_CCBY_Signed_Waiver.pdf

Hi for way/276694450/history I rode my bike there 4 years back and can't recall any no bicycle sign, what's your source for bicycles not allowed here?

@nevw you can't delete from maps.me, all you can do is "this no longer exists" which will add a note.

@robmacca, in maps.me you can use bookmarks for adding pins just saved on your phone, but the add "Add a place to the map" does indeed add it to OSM. No big deal, we see a lot of people make the same mistake. If you do come across real ones missing on the map, please do keep adding them.

Hi so after reading your comment at way/805172838 have you actually surveyed this? If you haven't then please add a note to the map instead, a website which says there is a track there is not enough validation for adding a path.

Ah interesting I didn't realise there was a track from that side, I did see some markers but track was almost completely overgrown. I've mapped the track from the other side in way/787887491

I've reverted the access=customers change since I didn't hear back.

For next time it's better to split the way and add the maxheight to the segment under the bridge only, otherwise it impacts routing that wouldn't normally go under the bridge. I've fixed this one.