Hi, your edits have been deleted. If you need to use OSM for test data then sandboxes exist for this purpose.

Regards,
ortho_is_hot

Hi there,

Dalton Street and Sedgman Avenue are no longer connected to Bowral Road, the nodes are just overlapping. I don't want to break the turn restrictions and such by editing it myself, would you be able to reconnect them?

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

No worries, happy mapping!

Hi, here's a query https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/193B (that should auto-run) that shows all the cartpaths that you have last edited that have a name (all of them won't be erroneous however some will be). Would suggest though that if the ways represent real features e.g. hedges, etc, or whatever you've drawn them along then they should be retagged rather than deleted.

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

Hi,

I can see there is a lot of "temporary" markers in numerous golf courses. If they don't represent real world features, then I don't understand why they are in the database. If they are needed for software compatibility then that is a software issue, not an OSM issue?

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

Hi, I've deleted these cartpaths in changeset/107294146 as the roads already exist and aren't cartpaths.

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

Nice catch didn't notice that one, will go through and correct occurrences tomorrow.

Thanks,
ortho

I would agree with ScottWalker here; the footway=sidewalk tag is to provide additional, more specific information about the type of footway (it's a well established tag e.g. https://taghistory.raifer.tech/#***/footway/sidewalk)

Hi, if the path is dirt, then it would be best to tag it as 'dirt'. 'unpaved' is just a catch all term for everything, whereas dirt is a more specific value.

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

Hi, do you think this is better marked as residential rather than tertiary?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/100314700

Congratulations 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉

Hi, what street level imagery was used for this?
Thanks,
ortho_is_hot

Whoops sorry about that thanks for correcting, I think the boundaries should be separate ways anyway but cool

Hi, as the upgrade has progressed they've been swapping the alignment to either side; in this case they've finished the new section on the eastern side so two way traffic is using that and they're upgrading the western side which is the original alignment, which is why I marked it as construction? Thanks, ortho_is_hot

Hi, what street level imagery was used for this? Thanks, ortho_is_hot

Hi, just a follow up to the above?

Hi, what streetlevel imagery are you using for this since it's in the source?
Thanks, ortho_is_hot

Comment should've said: Reverted changesets 98442510 and 98442734 as a separate way is not needed for contraflow lanes (JOSM seems to have had an error)

Hi, I've restored the runway area for Broome (in 98480589) as area:aeroway=runway.

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

Hi, I've restored one of the waterbodies that you deleted as based on Maxar Premium (the imagery that the original editor used, as well as the one that appears to be most up to date) this water source still exists (changeset/98480045)

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot