The whole section was added by you https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/49230851. I split the way so I could add a different trail_visibility to the section along the creek (which is vague and overgrown, but there is still a path, hence trail_visibility=horrible) to the part that seemingly goes straight up the cliff which I couldn't find.

Based on what you've said I'll remove that last section as after looking extensively around where it's marked on the map I couldn't find anything.

Thanks for proving the context here!

Sorry I should have been more clear. It's specifically this way way/530994011.

hi! Thanks for adding this.

The name key should only be used for a name, not a description or classification of what the feature is, so I've removed "Billabong". See osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_use_name_tag_to_describe_things

In OSM water=pond is more for mostly man made ponds in city parks, with ducks etc.water=stream_pool is a better tag for these natural pools formed along a creek or river, I think, so I've changed it over.

I tried but couldn't find the track you added from Erskine Creek to the parking lot at the top of Nepean Lookout Firetrail. I checked both ends with no success. It could be well overgrown by now. I'm tempted to remove, do you have any advice?

Any reason why way/271972464 is bicycle=designated? I couldn't find any signage or markings indicating that.

I don't understand relation/7010986, no u-turn from and to the same way? What's the purpose of this?

I don

I've reverted this changeset. In the iD or JOSM editor, if you change the background imagery to LPI Base Map you'll see the part near Captain Cook Bridge is labelled Cook Park. This lines up with what I saw in out of copyright historical maps of the area. It's just there is no signage... so I don't mind either way if the name is left there or not. But either way it's still a grassy area so should either be leisure=park or landuse=grass or something like that.

Done. I've removed the node, left the area. Marked it as surface=paving_stones. I know it's not all paving_stones, but it might be a good way to say mostly it is? I'd already added the bicycle_parking at node/5149716266. But please do add any further details from your survey.

Check out:
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/17501/when-mapping-polygons-surrounded-by-streets-should-they-share-nodes-or-be-traced-separately

And osm.wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Areas_and_Ways_Sharing_Nodes
"...when the way is a highway, it usually is most accurate to include a gap, so that the area ends by the side of the road and does not share nodes with the road's way. This is because highway ways usually are traced along the center line of the road, and it is unlikely that the area being tagged actually extends to the center of the road."

I've found from experience areas snapped to the road make future editing more difficult as you need to consider both features, and ungluing is difficult, especially when trying to retain object histories.

Also it's not an accurate representation of reality. Anyone using OSM to say determine the area of that parking lot will get incorrect results if it extents out to the road center line.

I know it's tempting but it's well accepted to not map for the renderer osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_for_the_renderer

It's better for data consumers to post-process the data to extend areas which are close to the road, all the way to the road rather than having the source data in OSM do this.

That said, I think that on most maps I've seen, since the the width of the road as rendered on the map is usually wider than a the true width of the road even if the area isn't snapped it appears to extend to the road anyway, simply because of the width of the rendered road line.

is it an office where people work from? How about osm.wiki/Tag%3Aoffice%3Dassociation

If it provides services out of that location social_facility=* with social_facility:for=disabled ?

I'd use the full name in the name tag, and short_name for MDAA, but there is no clear agreement on the OSM wiki if short_name should be used for abreviations so I'll leave this up to you name=*.

The whole area is referred to as "Cook Park" all the way from up near Kyeemagh down to at least Sandringham.

The south part near Captain Cook Bridge I think is un-signposted so simply landuse=grass. If you've confirmed it's not part of Cook Park, then simply removing way/77083928 from the relation relation/1515434/history is the way to go, not actually deleting the way.

I surveyed way/75392223 a long time ago and it was signposted as "Peter Depena Reserve" part of "Cook Park", hence it was part of the Cook Park relation.

I'd like to revert this changeset to reinstate "Peter Depena Reserve" and then remove way/77083928/history from the Cook Park relation and change it to landuse=grass. Is that what your intention was? Did you want to do this, or would you like me to do the revert?

Perfect. Would be interested to see if it has a name sign posted, since it was mapped out with a name originally.

Thanks. The OSM Wiki says for leisure=park "A park is an area of open space provided for recreational use, usually designed and in semi-natural state with grassy areas, trees and bushes. Parks are often but not always municipal."

This is an area of open space for recreational (Refreshment of one's mind or body after work through activity that amuses or stimulates; play.). As you can see in the Mapillary link, it's a place for people to sit and refresh with trees etc. so I think it is fine as leisure=park, surface=paving_stones (so it's different from a grassy park)?

You're right it's small, but data consumers can easily filter out small parks based on the geometry if they only want to show big parks ;).

Have you been here and surveyed the area or was this judgment made from something else?

I'm only judging from the Mapillary imagery.

I noticed the cafe you added node/4972926520 was already mapped in OSM node/4331958057

I've deleted your one and kept the one which was there first, just updating the position slightly to where you had it.

Got it, I was confused as the changeset comment was "hotel name change".

It would be awesome if you mentioned this in the changeset comment, something like "removing duplicate library already existing at node/4621800012". Thanks!

PS. it's great that you're using changeset comments, they are super helpful for others to understand intentions and what you're trying to do. I can see here you've used the same comment as last changeset, I know it's easy to make that mistake, I have too, so keep in mind of that next time. Cheers.

That's right, the beach is still there, so if you only want to remove the name, just delete the name tag.

I reverted your changeset since the beach is still there, but you can go in and just fix the name.

On the otherhand there are no markings on the ground, and it might be better to add tags to the rock to indicate it's passable so routers can choose to go over the rock.

I can see where you're coming from, and honestly I'm not sure what we should have in OSM here, but the path from Burning Palms to Figure of Eight Pool was marked as trail_visibility=no which means pathless so no evident trail on the ground. This passage is very well used by people so I'd argue it's verifiable by going there on the weekend and seeing all the people walk it, even though you can't make a path out on the ground.

Then there is way/384742095/history last time I checked there was a path evident on the ground, are you saying this is now completly grown over such that no path is visible anymore? I think that's the only circumstance it should be removed, otherwise adding trail_visibility and access tags can be used if it's not as "important" as the other paths.