The outline you've drawn seems to line up with Sentinel imagery which shows it. Well done.

is it surface=fibre_reinforced_polymer_grate ?

OSRM is adding area routing, so hopefully this will soon be not needed (maybe once enough routers follow too)

the ballot thing really depends when you want to visit, it's only for peak times, other times you can rock up and by a day pass at entry.

I've updated this to motor_vehicle=yes + fee:motor_vehicle=yes. To say that anyone can drive here if you pay a fee. In particular it's open to the public which I associate with access=yes. access=private is a very strict access value usually for staff/maintenance/the owner only. I think access=permit is a bit different as you really can just buy a entry pass at the gate (when it's not peak times) and access=permit implies I need to organise a permit before I travel.

What do you think?

https://www.holtestate.com.au/bhp1

Thanks. Okay I won't change anything, but just going by their website it does seem like "Derwent Ferries" would be better and more understood by users for the operator tag.

PS. This is why I like to tag `operator:wikidata` as well, because Wikidata has more flexibility to record the ABN, etc. which can then be used to lookup the entity structure and different names.

hi, where did the ferry operator "Navigators" come from? According to https://derwentferries.com.au/travel-info/ it seems like "Derwent Ferries" is the operator?

Thanks for improving this. Generally addr:suburb, addr:postcode and addr:state aren't needed as they can be derived from the admin boundaries, indeed when we did the import of these addresses it was decided to intentionally not include suburb, postcode and state.

hi, what happened to the building? I see you've removed building=yes, but still have the building:levels tag?

If the building is no longer there, then what's there now?

ok, but we can't use Google Street View for mapping in OSM, just your local knowledge, surveys or sources we can legally use.

I've reverted this changeset in changeset/141628045 since it had incorrectly dragged a node to the wrong location.

While okay to map it as a node or on the main office building, I think where possible it's best to place the tags on the whole site area, as this then captures all the motel buildings and grounds. I've made changes here to do that.

If you feel it adds value, then by all means go for it. Someone might find it useful.

It's most useful for larger blocks where it provides information about which street and where exactly access to a residence may be from. Especially where a residence may be addressed to one street but accessed via another street.

ps this applies to all your other recent changes too.

access=no would imply it's unusable by any vehicle including fire trucks, emergency services, and NPWS maintenance vehicles. Is that the case? (this would be motor_vehicle=no) Or is it just closed to general public vehicles? (this would be motor_vehicle=private).

Additionally do you know the situation for bicycles/mountain bikes? Because a top level access=no also captures bicycles. If the signage says something no "no access, walkers only" then access=no + foot=designated would be okay, if the sign just says no vehicles or maintenance vehicles only then motor_vehicle=private + foot=yes + bicycle=yes might be better.

There's some documentation at osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Vehicle_Access

thanks, fyi it should be either disused:amenity=bar or amenity=bar but not both tags. it looks like from your edit you've added the disused by left the amenity=bar intact. I've fixed this now.

hi unfortuantly this doesn't seem to matchup with the other addresses here. The address you've modified was for Unit 4, 31 Rosella Cl, but now you've set it as Unit 4, 350 Benhiam St, but all the other units 1 through 13 are still mapped as 31 Rosella Cl. Are all the other units in that block at 350 Benhaim St? Does 31 Rosella Cl not exist there?

From the imagery it looks like it might be a combined basketball and netball court?

hi, it may well be dangerous, but the kerb ramps on either side imply there is an unmarked crossing here, therefore we should map it as such, and we should restore the prior unmarked crossing tags.

Routing engines can take this into account when routing or when people are doing network analysis from OSM data.

hi, the Grose Valley was already mapped as an area at relation/12107614 but the node you've added sits out side that. Do you think the Grose Valley relation should be extended into where you've placed the node or should that be Govetts Gorge node/8236010768

This changeset has been reverted in changeset/166758428 please discuss further here or on the OSM Community Forum.