Hi there, I'm just wondering if surface=compacted would be better for this? There's an image with the differences between the two at surface=gravel
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164662123

From aerial imagery, that looks unintentional, plus the original traffic_signals value looks like it was correct.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164584696

Hi there, if you're looking for somewhere to make maps over the top of OSM data, uMap is a good place to look.
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164575431

In that case, would you be able to add in the correct driveways where they are, if you're local you'd be best placed to map them correctly compared to others using aerial imagery.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164457780

Only issue I can find other than what Alliegaytor has pointed out (and I agree with their comments) is that building:levels = 0 is incorrect, the only time that would be valid is if the building is underground and accompanied with building:levels:underground as a tag. If it's a single story building, you'll want building:levels = 1.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164532006

If it's going to be like that for more than 6 months I'd look at mapping that it's a single lane road, and potentially even as alternating one-way.

Looks like the whole thing is already tagged with railway:preserved=yes anyway, which I think is preferred over using railway=preserved for historic railways that are still used like Pichi Richi and the Cockle Train.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164505084

Hi, the guard rail tag should be placed on a separate way where the guard rail is located, not on the road way it is alongside.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164414758

Hi there, the name for the bridge section should remain as Gorge Road. If 3768 is just a reference number, you can put it in bridge:ref, otherwise, I'd put it in bridge:name if it's the name of the bridge.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164414840

Thanks for fixing my typo!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164366404

Hi, that tagging isn't needed as bus access is assumed as yes on roads.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164312377

Hey, just an FYI, 1370305563 isn't actually a parking area so I've removed it, it's just unused dirt next to the petrol station.

I've restored the way and removed the node in changeset/164277015

I'd generally still keep any that are mapped as ways, more detail is always better than less, and the inconsistency just shows where improvements can be made for anyone who's interested.

Hi, just wondering why the node was left but the way was removed? I would have thought it would be better to keep the more detailed way and remove the node as redundant?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164274441

The options in iD are a simplified version to try and help, but access tagging is generally best to be specific unless there's no access allowed regardless of method of travel.

I'd recommend reading some of the wiki pages around access tagging.

Please show respect to other mappers.

If the path doesn't exist at all, then yes, it can be removed, but it's best tagged with a lifestyle prefix instead to show that and prevent it being mapped again. If it does exist, then it should remain and be tagged appropriately, as mentioned.

There's more than just cyclists using OSM, it's a geospatial database with many uses. We map what's on the ground.

The best option is to specifically mark what isn't allowed, unless nothing is allowed.

Agai, we have tagging to indicate a private road or trail, and that should be used.