Based on these comments I've reverted to restore the slipway ways, then added access=private based on the tag's introduced with this change.

correct based on what? What's the signage on the ground say?

Also note that previously we had alt_name=Grimwade Road but now both alt_name and name have the same value, which isn't right.

Also the short section up near Noggerup was missed.

it should be the lower case tag value building=hospital, but no worries I've fixed it.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164839973

way/443605093/history added Sydney Water as the Zone Substation operator, are you sure that's correct? I would assume it's Ausgrid who operate the substation.

I've made some adjustments in changeset/164659060 in particular moved the name to the building way.

Was it intentional to move Budget Avis Car Rental? Or was that accidential?

osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix offers some options, `construction` is usually for something being built/repaired, if it's just damaged and repairs haven't started then I'd leave it as one of the "stages of decay"

`abandoned` seems to match best, but I don't like how that implies that there's no plan to repair it, something like `damaged` would be okay too.

The tags look good.

"Sea side lane repair. Circulation in both directions on the remaining lane regulated by traffic light."

In that case the road is still accessible to traffic both directions, just with delays. Most data consumers expect highway=construction to mean it's undergoing construction and has not yet opened and therefore there is no access, so I wouldn't use the tag in this case, it will break a lot of maps and routers. I realise we don't tag for the rendered, but I think there has to be a better way to mark it as undergoing repairs but still open than just highway=construction.

Ah I see you've done this now.

Technically the restriction=no_u_turn should only be used on signed no u turns, and not as an arbitrary way to place restrictions on the routing, but it is common practice it is widely used as the latter and seems mostly accepted to do this by the community.

So I would say in this case to prevent routers trying to u-turn from Ellerton Drive back onto Ellerton Drive where the dual carriageway merges into single it is acceptable to use a no_u_turn relation here, even though it may not be an intersection and even though there is no signage.

hi I'm not sure what you mean by "open plan" but for the 5 units you've mapped if they are sharing a common wall, but next to each other and not on top what you have for the outlines is good, but for the tags I would use building=house + house=terraced per house=*

It looks like the unit number 4 is repeated in your mapping though.

no reply so I'll revert this.

The overtaking=no is good, but the restriction=no_u_turn restriction=no_u_turn needs to go on a relation object which has to/from/via members, and not on the way.

In JOSM add a new relation, set the tags type=relation + relation=no_u_turn then add the two ways as to/from members and the intersection node which connects both as a via member.

Thanks. I've added a few extra tags to mark the brand and tag it as a bottle return machine.

name is for proper names not descriptions per osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don't_use_name_tag_to_describe_things

See diet:vegetarian=* and diet:vegan=*

cuisine=* should be for french, german, japanese etc, not the diet types.

hi shanewh, given you're brand new to OSM, I suggest taking some time to learn about how OSM works, learn from other experienced mappers in the area, and take in feedback.

In this case fortera is correct that if the bike lane exists it should be mapped. If you don't like narrow bike lanes perhaps you could work on tagging the widths of each bike lane so people can make maps highlighting those that are wide and those that aren't? Then routing engines can favour wide ones and avoid narrow ones.

Agreed with fortera here. a top level access=no strongly implies it's in general not accessible to anyone, it's always best to try and tag specific modes and omit the top level access tag.

So it sounds like foot=yes + bicycle=no + horse=no.

hi shanewh, I can see you're brand new to OSM, I suggest reading some wiki pages like osm.wiki/Good_practice

In this case, it's easy, just tag the bike lane width per cycleway=*#Supplementary_details then data consumers like maps and routers can factor that in. You can even then make your own map style using OSM data that ignores bike lanes less than a width you choose, then others can make other map styles showing bike lanes even if they might be narrow.

Seems unlikely there would be a house ware shop here, can you provide anything to support your claim? Also the building added should only cover the building footprint, not the whole lot, is that something you can fix?