is addr:city a new thing, from memory this wasn't in your original imports. I think it's worth having a discussion about addr:city vs addr:suburb.

I'm not sure if there is a best practice. It's certainly much more common to do either a block at a time, or a whole area covering several blocks though. A polygon for each parcel although not that common, I would say is valid.

way/715622438 shouldn't use the name tag for the street address. You can use addr:housenumber for that. osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_use_name_tag_to_describe_things the name tag should be for the common name of a feature only.

I've deleted node/6723460485 as a duplicate of node/6240817600

Per osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_use_name_tag_to_describe_things I've changed the "name" to "description"

Cheers, I just did a survey of this area and will upload to Mapillary soon and yes these are really gone.

It looks like you've tagged Emporis.com as a source, could you specify what data was used, and can you point to the licensing etc which backs up why we're able to use this in OSM?

Looking at https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/608090448 what's the intention here?

bicycle=no is already the default for highway=footway, and access=private also implies foot=private.

great thanks.

Hi could you confirm which local government data? I'm not aware of any open data from local governments in the eastern suburbs.

Could you note your source for the geometry? It helps others who come along later using updated aerial imagery decide which is more accurate.

yep I left in foot=yes, but just added the sidewalk tags to be more explicit.

access=no and then bus=designated, implies no for all other modes of transport. It's not necessary to add motor_vehicle=no. ie. how I originally tagged it.

Taxis are not allowed in "bus_only" acoording to this signage and https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/using-roads/buses/bus-lanes.html

I've added the sidewalk tags to specify which side of the way the footpath runs.

Hey Stephen, according to osm.wiki/Highway_link and my understanding of common practice, the highway _link classifications apply to these "physical channelization of turning traffic lanes at traffic signal junctions and in roundabout designs that physically separate a specific turn from the main roundabout.".

I could see at https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/73093176 that you've changed some of these to residential, but I suspect _link is more correct.

I couldn't tell when I last surveyed here, https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo&lat=-33.86438888888889&lng=151.20721388888887&z=17&x=0.5171864733976566&y=0.5816864371843455&zoom=1.0225622820569238&pKey=Q4xyuA7xuGhtElgfYmHlqA if this was a road or not between Bond St and Margaret St, but if you checked recently and didn't look like there was, then all good. Thanks for updating.

according to https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo&lat=-33.7321&lng=151.006075&z=17&pKey=y3QvmwY3KoO_lyinbUDUfg&x=0.46100263629751287&y=0.4689571364587044&zoom=1.9994186827455607 this is "No Entry, Busses Excepted", "Bus Only" to me that means your changes here (see https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/665997141) are incorrect as cars, bicycles, pedestrians are not allowed on this road.

Thank you! It certainly helps when you have engineering data, I did my best using noise GPS traces and outdated imagery...

I've reverted this, as you've dragged the node.

See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

...again replying to a private message from Bytemark. I've reinstated this change now, however I didn't hear back about the deleted treatment reservoirs.

It's a good idea to provide a link back to the import plan/discussion/documentation, either in the comment or changeset tags.