Partial reversion done, as per discussion on talk-au mailing list. See changeset/147406352

Partial reversion of changesets:
changeset/137773356
changeset/140660737
changeset/141445146

I've added access=discouraged to the way.

This has been discussed on the talk-au mailing list.
Reasons for reversion:
This is still visible on the ground (checked by myself 30 November 2023)
The track is not formally closed.

The actual reversion was delayed as there was the possibility of NPWS joining the discussion on the list, but unfortunately this never eventuated.

See also:
osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

Just checking on the source for the maxspeed change - the maxspeed 60 seems to extend an unusually long distance from Talwood. Mapillary images from September 2023 show a temporary 60 zone for roadworks - is this what you saw?

Just checking on the source for the maxspeed change - is this from the NSW Speed Data source or from local survey? Google imagery from Dec 2023 still shows maxspeed 20 (which I had surveyed previously)

Just letting you know that the maxspeed is still signposted 80 (not 100) on this road

Just letting you know that the maxspeed is still signposted 80 (not 100) on both these roads

Just wondering what the "NSW Speed data" source is? I've recently been through here, and The Lakes Way is still maxspeed 80 (not 100). I didn't check Old Soldier's Road on my recent trip, but on Google Street View, it's maxspeed is still 90 (not 100).

I've just sent an email to the talk-au mailing list to get a consensus on this. way/29415025 was overgrown at my 2022 survey, so it's quite likely gone by now. The other three ways (29415022, 630040313, 1052666246) were present on the ground in 2022.

Also, has there been a formal request directly to OSM 'behind the scenes' from NPWS regarding these paths, that I am not aware of?

It's probably better to have something present on OSM, rather than deleting it. Otherwise, someone else could come along later and add it back in, not knowing there's been an issue. If the path has been formally closed, then access=no is an alternate tag to use. (This was used in a similar situation last year in another national park, when a new user deleted a path without discussion.) This might need another survey to clarify.

Just checking - is this based on a survey of the tracks? If the tracks are still visible, it might be better to leave the ways in, possibly with alteration of the tagging (depending on the current status of the tracks). See also discussion at changeset changeset/116519029 which concerns earlier edits to these ways.

Just checking - is this based on a survey of the tracks? If the tracks are still visible, it might be better to leave the ways in, possibly with alteration of the tagging (depending on the current status of the tracks). See also discussion at changeset changeset/116519029 which concerns earlier edits to these ways.

Were those tracks officially closed, or are they still informal? I had thought the consensus was to leave the path on OSM, marked as informal=yes. If it has been recently closed, might be better to leave it in, marked as abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=* (otherwise someone might come along later and add it back in). (I'm too far away to go back there to re-survey in-person.)

Just letting you know that I've reverted this changeset. There is no new Orange East Station or associated new roadways next to James Sheahan High (I checked this yesterday). changeset/137194115

Reversion of changeset changeset/135332632

Just wondering what the note you added is for. You've added the note "Turn restriction needs one via way" to these relations, however all 4 of them already have a via way in them. Am I missing something?

Just letting you know that I've unconnected Dairy Creek Road from the Mitchell Highway. This section of road was closed when the new intersection for the Southern Feeder Road was opened.

Just letting you know that I've deleted this campsite, as it's not the name of the campsite. I've incorporated the node into the way marking the boundary of the actual campsite.

Just letting you know that your 'test' edits here have been removed - one was already removed, I removed the other last night.

I reviewed these ways a month ago - have just uploaded the change now (changeset/119854924) - path near cliff is there, so I've marked it as informal=yes. I found traces of the one further from the cliff, but with the recent heavy rains the grass was very long, so I couldn't do a complete survey - I've marked it as informal=yes, trail_visibility=bad.