Is this just a regular service station - why the seamark tags? A seamark facility is normally at the waters edge - seamark:small_craft_facility:category=fuel_station

There is also a point of interest for the regular fuel station so you might want to merge the details

I am curious why you deleted so many buildings in this changeset when they are still visible on the imagery?

It would be appreciated if you could write meaningful changeset comments so we can all quickly tell what you have edited. Cheers

I am concerned about this import and some of the tagging used. Is there a wiki page for the import? What does the min_height refer to - the building or past flooding?

Is this part of an organised survey or import? I am concerned in regards to the tags used in a few instances.

Is this part of some organised survey? I am a bit worried about some of the tagging.

Maybe grab some gps logs if possible (and upload them to OSM) and then cut and shut the tracks where they are combined. Cheers

I have removed this and turned it into a note for your own reference

Also, please add meaningful changeset comments. osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Changing the name doesn't answer the original question - is this just a personal marker?

What is the actual feature at the place you have named "Nose"?

Is part of the track one way? In that case it needs to be split.

If this is actually trafficable by vehicle then I think the more appropriate tagging is a Land Access Track. It also looks like some parts of this track are duplicated with the Raptor Ridge track, plus there is a section of track in the south that very nearly crosses over itself. Is that actually the case?

Is this actually a real place or just a personal marker?

No drama at all - Here is a treat for you - images of Tasmania from a colleague - enjoy!
https://www.grantdixonphotography.com.au/galleries/gallery.php?id=28

No worries - Its only that larger group - I cleaned the few outliers on the eastern shore of the Derwent River. The Microsoft buildings were created on older imagery (I suspect) and in more rural areas they are OK in some places. We are still trying to get access to our government imagery which is better in small rural towns but when we get access to that is anyone's guess. Many thanks.

Its just disappointing when the imagery is so good, Just check out the houses in the block next door by Andy_T_56. He is leading the charge on getting great building footprints. https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1zUv

Please dont just blindly accept the Microsoft Buildings. They just about all need adjustment, especially in this area where there is fantastic imagery. Any chance you can go back and fix all these buildings?

This is a shared path for both bikes and walkers is it not? If so then the highway=path is the better tagging with foot=designated and bicycle=designated (as per the ID Shared Path preset)

Hi there emilytrau - its also useful to split an address number like 17/6 into the two component parts - unit 17 and the street number of 6. Cheers