Hi, is this road actually called/signed as Munno Para Boulevard? It shouldn't carry the name just because it spurs off from it.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153503693

Hi there, access=no means nobody is allowed there. If this is private property, access=private or potentially access=customers (if appropriate) would probably be better suited.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152922212

This isn't the location of Rydges Pit Lane, and it's already mapped in the correct location. I've removed this as a result.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152532258

This is clearly a pool and not a pond.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152563508

Are these all signed with the name "Paraglider launch", or is that just a descriptive name that should be removed/moved to description?

If it's private it should be access=private, not acecss=no.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152357076

Hi, Google Maps isn't allowed as a source, was this verified using any other source/in person?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151920377

Hi, Google Maps isn't allowed as a source, was this verified using any other source/in person?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151920395

Hey, pretty sure these crossings aren't uncontrolled since there'd be signals there at the traffic lights.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152183270

Hi imccredie, I've reviewed these all, and they were tagged correctly. If your data consumer is treating these as routes, there is an issue with the data consumer as they are all tagged as platforms with area=yes as well.

changeset/151603042

Hi imccredie, I've reviewed these all, and they were tagged correctly. If your data consumer is treating these as routes, there is an issue with the data consumer as they are all tagged as platforms with area=yes as well.

changeset/151603042

Hi imccredie, I've reviewed these all, and they were tagged correctly. If your data consumer is treating these as routes, there is an issue with the data consumer as they are all tagged as platforms with area=yes as well.

changeset/151603042

Hi imccredie, I've reviewed these all, and they were tagged correctly. If your data consumer is treating these as routes, there is an issue with the data consumer as they are all tagged as platforms with area=yes as well.

changeset/151603042

Hi imccredie, I've reviewed these all, and they were tagged correctly. If your data consumer is treating these as routes, there is an issue with the data consumer as they are all tagged as platforms with area=yes as well.

changeset/151603042

It actually looks like you've moved that node too, so I've moved it back.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151560311

It looks like you've managed to accidentally make node/3759965257 part of way/169331951 (South Terrace). I've fixed this up already for you, just an FYI.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151560311

Hi, descriptive names like this shouldn't be used.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151490438

I've removed the small untagged way added in Australia in this edit.

Reverted fictional edit

changeset/151080722

Ahh, thanks for explaining, yeah looked like you'd just removed the tag but I missed it marking it as not visible, sorry!