hi, thanks for adding lanes=1 however this road is still accessible and open so setting access=no is not right, that would mean that it's closed or not accessible. I've removed the access tags. Because footpaths are not mapped here yes, best to leave off the foot access tag unless specifically signposted so that routing engines can still do pedestrian routing.

yes

In the history I can see that it recently had the highway tag removed which set the type of road and defines it as a road, http://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/626562332. I've added that back in now.

FYI bus was already allowed by psv=yes on this way access=*#Land-based_transportation so although adding bus=yes is not wrong, it was already allowed with the current tags.

Has something changed since https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/Gjkbkk-WQf278ulkiRBcow? I can't see anything on the imagery which would restrict cars, only a turn restriction where Walumetta Drive reaches Gas Works Road (those turn restrictions can be mapped separately).

Specifically what on the ground is restricting use by motor vehicles?

Hi Peter, based on https://osmcha.org/changesets/90670135 it is apparent this change wasn't made based on a ground survey. It would be very helpful if next time you could specify your source for making the change it just helps other contributors to understand how it came to be.

hi you renamed the street to Grazier Road but the buildings you added you still set addr:street to Frazier Way?

I've removed aquaculture and set as parking per <1yr old imagery. If you feel that's not right please just post back.

Are you sure https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/648328250 is aquaculture, that seems quite unlikely.

Another mapper has corrected this by changing it to proposed and unjoining the nodes shared with surface features.

Hi, could you please provide some more context for these changes? Are you carefully reviewing each change, or is this a bunch of mass-manual changes based on the iD validator?

There are a number of changes here which don't look right so trying to understand how the changes were made.

1. https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/node/3338957765 I don't know about this one specifically, but Nando's is a chicken joint, so did you verify it's pizza here, or was this an armchair edit?
2. https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/node/4776056221 the name here contained the branch, this information should be retained either in the name tag or moved into the branch tag. Personally I think the prior name was fine, but if it's signposted or known differently then at the very least it should be moved to branch.
3. https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/node/5740037527 this is a traffic signals crossing last I saw, why was it changed to marked?
4. https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/108737537 leisure=swimming_pool doesn't need to be an indoor excavated lined pool. according to the wiki it's simply "a place built for swimming as a recreational activity or sport" so if it's a special purpose built facility for swimming, then that's okay even if outdoor.
4. https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/23717445 What's swimming_pool=swimming mean?

someone else mapped this too in the same way as you changeset/90481024

my comment still stands that for sewer vent masts, you can see a bunch I've mapped at https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/XMk. I used: man_made=mast + substance=sewage + tower:type=ventilation

are these distinguishable by an observer, or do we need to wait for people to get caught to know where they are? How can you tell them apart from regular traffic cameras?

for sewer vent masts, you can see a bunch I've mapped at https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/XMk.

I used:

man_made=mast
substance=sewage
tower:type=ventilation

hi, just the same comment as before if you could try to avoid sharing nodes/snapping with overground features unless the underground rail is connected to it in same way, you can see at https://osmcha.org/changesets/90496885 where you placed the shared nodes.

Has construction actually stared or is it just planned? Per osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix "proposed" may be better until construction starts.

This can be tagged with both `proposed=railway` and `proposed:railway=subway` see proposed=*

hi there, when mapping things like tunnels if you could try to avoid having these share nodes with above ground features unless they should be linked, eg. you can see at https://osmcha.org/changesets/90531971 that you're change as a number of shared nodes now. So eg if someone dragged a building above ground that would cause the underground rail to move because the nodes are snapped. If using the JOSM editor you can hold Ctrl while placing nodes to avoid snapping, there may be a way to do similar in iD, I'm not sure.

ping @Maradona11 not sure if you're interested in these changes, you can inspect in osmcha, eg https://osmcha.org/changesets/90403765 plus another change today at https://osmcha.org/changesets/90411239

note=* is for other mappers, description=* is for end users of the map, What you've placed in note seems better fit for map users to be aware of hence better to use description.
Is "Campground Clearing" really the name, or is it just a description? osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_use_name_tag_to_describe_things

FYI I just created the proposal to try and formalise the existing tag for a rock overhang shelter see osm.wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:shelter_type%3Drock_shelter

also if you're tagging different parts of the buildings with different hights, but still part of the same building, then for the smaller inside parts it's standard to use building:part=*, eg. building:part=yes and then leave the building tag for the outside way which is for the footprint.