Is there a geological blowhole here? If so let's add the tag natural=blowhole

Is this feature you named "The Blowhole" node/4419354288 a geological blowhole? If it is let's add the tag natural=blowhole

Is the feature you named Blowhole at node/1834703339 a geological blowhole? If it is let's add the tag natural=blowhole

Is this feature you named Blowhole a geological blowhole? If it is let's add the tag natural=blowhole

Is the feature you named Blowhole at node/3758567210 a geological blowhole? If it is let's add the tag natural=blowhole

Is the feature you mapped named Blowhole at node/2666377278 a geological blowhole? If it is let's add the tag natural=blowhole

Is node/1613912944 open to the general public? If not it should be access=private.

You've used Google Maps as a source, could you please elaborate on where this data came from? If you copied from Google Maps I'll go ahead and delete this one until it can be surveyed again.

highway=pedestrian on a linear way is only meant for Roads mainly / exclusively for pedestrians. way/546930679 is a corridor, not a road for pedestrians.

As a closed way, it's appropriate for plazas, but not really for corridors.

Chatswood mall is occasionally used as a road during market setup/setdown, so I think it's okay there.

Even Post Office Lane could be highway=pedestrian given it's predominantly used by pedestrians and only rarely for delivery vehicles.

Hi @aalanar, Welcome to OSM. Just double checking that you dropped the name "Heritage Drive Reserve" from that park, but the LPI Basemap shows a name. If you know the area, please add in the name as signposted, if you don't know please leave the existing name.

Secondly, when adding someones backyard pool, it's best to add access=private otherwise people might rock up expecting a public swimming pool.

It's just QSpatial is run by Department of Natural Resource and Mines which didn't grant the extra permissions OSM requires. That said I believe TMR did have a state roads dataset, so i guess it depends which dataset you used and which agency published it.

All else fails a local survey is undisputed ;)

Sorry I see you've already worked this out with node/5268872555

I know it's you're first edit so, it's the important thing is thanks for mapping this bike rack!

But keep in mind the name tag is only meant for a proper name, not a description. In this case
amenity=bicycle_parking indicates this already. See osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_use_name_tag_to_describe_things

If you want to say it's a bike rack as opposed to other types of bicycle parking you can use bicycle_parking=* (but that's optional).

If you want to leave a note for other OSM mappers you can add this to the note tag.

Further the TMR "permission" seems to me a bit weak legally. I'd suggest we try to get the OSMF CC BY waiver signed, and if not don't use TMR data.

That link is for TMR. The website gisservices.information.qld.gov.au doesn't work for me, could you please point to which service this data came from?

QTopo from DNRM has not allowed their CC BY data to be used in OSM. See the thread at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2017-October/thread.html

You can map out the new routes without stops, but again without a CC BY waiver from TfNSW you shouldn't just copy the routes from their map you'd need to survey this yourself independently.

In JOSM. Data > Revert Changeset. However I don't really know the area well or exactly what you've done in this changeset. Eitherway you'll need to remove the imported data until we have the waiver from TfNSW. You're free to map independently from ground survey though.

I've reverted your change to the landuse polygon which flooded perth with green.

I don't agree with that landuse way, but I think it's fair to leave it as a placeholder which can be reduced while it is mapped with better detail to exclude non residential areas.

Probably best to remove, as no response and can't see any visible signage outside from Mapillary.

Looks good to me!