Hi there, the building way should only cover the actual building (and multiple should be created if needed), not the property boundaries.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/150336017

Yeah, it's an odd one, multiple expansions that I think most people consider part of the same retail precinct, but somewhat separate to the main shopping centre.

Yeah definitely makes sense in those cases, only obvious exception I can think of is Munno Para Shopping City, that's a weird one!

It's a bit tricky, might be worth looking at some other shopping centers with extra shops in the carpark and see how they handle it.

Hey, I reckon the name and shop tag should probably come off the land use entirely, those would be more appropriate on the building (and it looks like the name is already tagged on something else so that goes against one object, one feature).
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/150324901

Should the service road actually be named Kingston RV Park? I would have thought that a separate way surrounding the park, or a node, would be more appropriate, since it seems like an odd name for a road.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/150288475

Thanks for catching that, I’ve just fixed it

Hi there, is the road you've edited in this edit open to the public? It seems from a quick look that highway=service was more appropriate.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/150108352

Hi there, great work on this! There's a fair few ways I'm seeing with angles that don't appear to match up to aerial imagery. If you press Q while a way is selected in iD, it'll square off all the corners to 90 degree angles.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/150107908

I've confirmed we don't have permission to use SAPPA maps, however the DataSA Roads dataset does confirm that these are the current names. In future, please make sure you're using sources we have permission to use.

Just for the sake of clarity, junction=yes clearly states that junction=yes *should not* be used on junction nodes being shared by roads without any further properties.

Hi, you've requested a review, can you please explain what you've changed considering you've only left "gg" as a comment and have made a change across multiple countries?

I'd have to agree with ouchjars, the protected cycle lane does continue on into the northern most section of Frome Street, it doesn't just suddenly end.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149891968

I reckon way/1271382924 should just be removed, there's already a landuse=residential area that covers this area.

Hi, as per my comment on 150053524, link roads generally don't have names.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/150054004

Hi there, link roads usually don't have a name associated with them, one option is destination:street to tag the road they're leading to.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/150053524

I've restored this in changeset/150035252 since AIBTE just removed it in a future changeset instead of actually moving it.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/150028581

I'll just mention the reviewed_bad from OSMCHA was another user, it just seems to add that to any comment added from there once that's been set by any user.

Discussion needs to occur before changes, and since there's been no actual community consensus on using DataSA for road classifications, and no bylaws actually provided to use, the previous classification is reasonable, and based on regularly driving through here, more appropriate.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149827902

Since the wiki page for junction=yes does explicitly say these nodes are incorrectly tagged, I do plan to re-revert these nodes, unless someone can provide a reason not to.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149827539