I've fixed it up now, but for future reference there's no preset in iD so you can scroll down to the list of tags and edit manually.

Did you want to add it back?

Why remove natural=cape? natural=cape seems to match. Maybe old_name is a better tag?

I think it would be better to add the maxspeed on the water area as it applies to all craft, not just ferries. It also avoids needing to split these ways which makes editing more complicated.

Looks like this change resulted in many overlapping streets, which Warin fixed up in changeset/62839490 do you know what caused this?

Are you sure there's a camp ground so close to the street here?

I'm pretty sure these places don't have Chinese names.

I've deleted the tourist=attraction since there is not attraction here.

The viewpoint isn't connected to any track are you sure it's in the right location?

I don't think it's going to go well camping in that marsh... are you sure the location is right?

+1

Though I changed that relation to except=bus since from the imagery it says Bus Only which excludes taxis http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/using-roads/buses/bus-lanes.html

Unless the imagery is outdated?

Hi there, I've changed that park to a leisure=pitch leisure=pitch

Generally I agree re sharing the same way, but in this case it does look like the land cover and land use line up.

It comes down to the principle of mapping how it's being use at the moment on the ground, not where the legal parcels extend to/where it could go in the future.

> I'll try to take a wander up there next week and see what is actually on the ground.

I'm happy to join you on that if you want, it's a short cycle for me.

I'm not 100% sure but it *might* make sense to use barrier=retaining_wall osm.wiki/Tag%3Abarrier%3Dretaining_wall on a shared way between the adjoining pedestrian areas, or perhaps using a different level or layer tag is enough to know they are on different levels.

I've fixed it up now, it's just highway=footway I think this was made more confusing due to https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2018-September/012072.html the outcome of that is to change the ID preset translation back to the american term "sidewalk".

See oneway=*#Sub_keys_.2F_exceptions that would be oneway=yes, oneway:bus=no

Hey mate, I'm not sure I agree with changing way/626872748 to match the cadastre. I think we should map the actual use on the ground (how it was before). Those wooded areas aren't being used as recreation area, so in my view, they shouldn't be included. There is a section in the top right that's is being used as a recreation ground but isn't within this way.

Are you sure about this, in the 2015 Mapillary imagery it's oneway https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=-uigmRftXvo8YOheB6BN6A&focus=photo

Same comment re footway=sidewalk

PS. this is probably considered mapping for the router as the pedestrian area is already mapped out, however since many routers have trouble routing over areas I can see how it's useful to also map it out as a way.

See the wiki on the sidewalk tag footway=sidewalk sidewalks go along side a road, if not then it's it's not a footway.

Thanks for the reply.

I've ensured Access Trail (as signposted) is still preset by placing it in the alt_name tag.

I think it's better to set building:levels and data consumers can guess a height from that. Otherwise I suggest you add a source:height so that if someone surveys it they know that it's okay to replace if they have a more accurate value compare to it being a guess from building:levels height=*?uselang=en-AU

What's the building_1=yes tag? https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/16750738