On the other hand... the individual gardens which make up the whole Royal Botanic Gardens are mapped as leisure=garden eg. relation/3625726. So now I'm not sure, I probably still think leisure=garden on the larger area is better.

In my opinion, leisure=garden is correct per leisure=garden. leisure=garden in no way implies that the landuse is all flower beds, so it's okay to have cafes and shops, etc. inside the gardens. You can map out the garden beds individually for more detail as landuse or landcover for more detail.

When did you survey this, it looks like on a weekday this is a highway=living_street, but on the weekend acts more like highway=pedestrian, as it's closed to cars, but still accepts cars at some hours for deliveries.

No idea, I think it's okay to delete.

Looks you you've dropped tourism=hotel from way/426966792 in this changeset. I've added it back, last time I checked it was still a hotel.

The distinction in OSM between bad and horrible is very blurry, keep in mind that trail_visibilty=bad already means "Path sometimes invisible, route partly pathless", which certainly would be almost unusable or completely unusable to some people. That said I'm fine with this change, "horrible" is also appropriate for "Often pathless".

On my hiking map I render bad and horrible the same as a faint dotted line compared to the good or excellent visibility paths, see https://www.beyondtracks.com/map/#13.83/-34.11294/151.03679

Thanks for not just deleting the track, since if there is evidence on the ground of a path and people still use it and follow it, even if it's faint or overgrown, then I think we should still keep it in OSM,

reverted see osm.wiki/Spam#SEO_Spam

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.