FYI addr:flats is to list out the unit numbers at the address, not a total count of units. building:flats is for the count of units in the building. Per the wiki.

This looks good to me.

Hi welcome to OSM, the scrub area you added was already existing at way/788214827 and the railway area isn't scrub so I've reverted this changeset. What were you trying to do with this change? Maybe I can help?

addr:unit is used to represent a single unit, this apartment block would contain multiple units probably with a number, so addr:unit is not the right place for the building number. You could just use name on the building like you have or addr:housename on the building.
You can use addr:flats to list individual unit numbers in the building.

addr=*

Unless you know it's wrong you should retain the prior tags like building:levels and building=residential
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/106571402

In the Vicmap Address data, all the addresses at Melbourne Park south of the train line have 3004 however your boundary here follows the Yarra. However when I check some venues in that area online their websites still list as 3000 postcode, so based on this I think we should ignore Vicmap and leave the boundaries as you've enter them.

On second look, I've left the node which has an address and just removed the tags for shop=mall and name since these are already mapped. If the address here is for the whole shopping centre then add it to the existing Westfield outline, otherwise if the address is just for this location here it can remain.

I'll remove this node because the shopping centre is already mapped at way/115809851 and per osm.wiki/Good_practice#One_feature.2C_one_OSM_element there should only be one element in OSM for this.

This was reverted in changeset/103302927.

I agree with the revert in that this route is a lower ranking compared to Pacific Highway. One being the main route which connects major cities in Australia, the other being a smaller connecting road to join major centres within a city.

Yeah I suspected that, actually while I don't think overlapping buildings like this is the right way to do this, I'm not sure if there is consensus around how it should be done, so I'll leave it as you've done.

Thanks for confirming, when you say north of town hall, is that north of Market Street?

I don't think this is how it should be done, because this tagging of a building=train_station area inside of a building=roof area implies you have a building inside and then a another completely different roof structure over the building. Usually it would only happen if there is a gap between the roof of the train station building and the other roof on top.

So I think how it was before was more correct. What do you think?

I don'

I believe unless there is a no bicycles sign then legally cyclists can use it so it shouldn't be bicycle=no, though if there is a bicycle lane then cyclists need to use it unless unsafe. Though if it's a bicycle lane, then we need bicycle=yes to indicate that the lane can be used. An off road path or shared path isn't mandatory to use.
So based on that it seems unlikely to be strictly bicycle=no.
If they build a new shared path on the western side, and this is mapped in OSM then routers will pick whether to use the shared path or road based on the profile preference (brouter is good at this, you can pick you want a fast bike route or a safer route).
Cycling safety tag comes up every now and then, but usually it boils down to being subjective, so usually it's better to tag objective things about the road which would affect bike safety (lanes, max speed, width, shoulder, parking lanes) because routers can use those to favour safer roads.

It's rare that bicycle access is not permitted unless it's a motorway or bus only lane, is there a no bicycles sign?

hi, welcome to OSM. Thanks for your edit.

I tweaked the tags here to be more consistent with how this is typically mapped and tagged.

Did you survey https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/288436548 ? From all the imagery it is still appearing.

FYI I think way/948639252 usually would be mapped tertiary_link, open for discussion if these should be or not, but it's what's commonly done.

I removed the ford=yes because you can't know if it's a ford or there is a bridge here from imagery, best to leave untagged so it can be set once surveyed.

Hi, could I also check why foot=yes was removed? Do you know if foot access is permitted here? Best to have it explicitly tagged yes or no.