Hey Kyle where have you seen Milldale called Wainui? To me Wainui refers to the wider area, and the specific little settlement at the west: osm.org/node/1706661578

In my opinion, it doesn't make sense for a minor urban path through a park to share the name of the long walking route which passes over it. The Coast to Coast Walk route is already well represented by the relation 30023: osm.org/relation/30023

The issue is well articulated by the answer on this post: https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/59782/name-ways-belonging-to-walking-networks-or-not

It was done in good faith I so I would not call it vandalism.
There is an ongoing conversation about naming parallel ways (eg footpaths and cycleways alongside named roads), but the consensus is quite clear about not using descriptions as names.

Hi ConnorKiwi, welcome to OpenStreetMap and thank you for adding your local knowledge to the map.
The details you added in the note field on the hospital could be added using the keys emergency and operator:type. see the wiki page at osm.wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dhospital

Adding the information in a structured format using key/value pairs makes it more useful for the software which works with OSM data.

Thanks again for improving the map with your up to date knowledge
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/96787462

Hi ingoratsdorf welcome to OpenStreetMap and thank you for your edits, all looking great. I can see you requested a review for this changeset, which was updating the tags of Tawharanui campground.

The changeset looks good to me, and adds valuable detail to the camp site. My two suggestions would be:
1 - Be wary of copy-pasting text from external sources, as you did for the description. This can be problematic depending on the copyright of the source (it's probably fine in this case) Better would be to write your own summary of the pertinent info.
2 - For a more advanced and detailed edit, you could try drawing the campground as an area - tracing around the approximate boundaries from aerial imagery. Within this area you could distinguish between the tent-only and campervan areas, and draw in the trees which separate the 'bays'
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/96791110

Hi TRFleming, welcome to OSM and thanks for updating the map with your local knowledge.

From your changeset comment I understand that what you were wanting to do was to specify that this track is not a public walkway, this can be achieved by updating the access tag to access=no or access=private. See osm.wiki/Tag:access%3Dprivate

Using access=no and access=private will stop routing software from directing people along this track

By removing the feature entirely, a likely outcome is that the track will be redrawn by another contributor in future (probably without access=private).
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/96159843

Yes the shapes would be easy for the finger wharves, less clear for the area you describe (which I believe is called North Wharf).
I'd also note that the names of man_made=pier polygon features don't seem to render in the standard OSM carto style, which is a bummer.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/96155277

See the changeset by @StenSoft who did exactly this in Wellington: https://osmcha.org/changesets/81194011/

I think that ultimately the wharves should be drawn as areas with man_made=pier.
osm.wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dpier

Review requested. It's quite complex with all the paths around here (as it is in real life) but I would say you did fine with the steps and levels etc. Personally I wouldn't map to that level of detail as long as pedestrian routing works through the market.

One question though, it looks like you deleted the footway ramp between 17 and 19 Drake St. Was this intentional - is the ramp gone? It is quite a 'famous' piece of history in the Markets: http://victoriaparkmarket.co.nz/victoria-park-market/celebrity-walk/
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95733944

That's cool - it sounds like you've done a survey on the ground and have updated the map accordingly, thanks.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95714169

Thanks for edit, I'm reviewing as requested.
Good work adding the missing red trail, and adding the names is helpful.
Your changesets added and refined the main trail, but it looks like you removed some of the side-trails in the process. Are these side trails actually gone? I can see on the Strava heatmap that these trails still appear to be used.

Strava's global heatmap can be used as a source for OSM editing, and can help supplement your ground survey: https://www.strava.com/heatmap#18.97/174.27118/-36.48495/hot/all
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95714169

Hi Pax welcome to OSM and thanks for your contributions.
I would agree that the ventilation buildings are not towers, but I would say that these features don't need names ('ventilation' is a description of their purpose, better reflected in some other tag). Also I would have thought that building=service was a more descriptive tag than building=yes.
Check these links on the wiki:
osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions

osm.wiki/Tag:building%3Dservice

Appreciate your edits though, I'm reviewing your other changesets in the area :)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95733313

> test if improves walking routing.
It can improve pedestrian routing (especially at complex intersections), but it needs to be meticulously maintained and connected to the existing street network. This post is bang on, IMO: https://www.reddit.com/r/openstreetmap/comments/9gxa1x/mapping_sidewalks/e69hyti/

To illustrate how the network topology can become broken by mapping separate sidewalks, see what a routing engine does when the sidewalk isn't well connected to the road network: https://i.imgur.com/TJlWMGT.png
I'd suggest that all the footpaths added/edited in this edit should be reversed, as these roads have standard footpaths sufficiently well represented by the main highway, and in fact the drawn separate footpaths degrade the pedestrian routing, as shown above. Alternatively, the footpaths need to be attached to the road network at every intersection.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/94800441

OK cool, thanks for flagging for review.
If I look at the changeset in OSMCha (follow the link in my first comment) I can see that you added an extra node on the boundary of the residential area - an insignificant change. This is the node: osm.org/node/8181757139

Another tip is to use the "Highlight changes" feature in the editor (Map Data -> Style Options -> Highlight Changes) to see where you have made edits.

I agree though that sometimes it is difficult or impossible to know exactly what was changed, before submitting. Then once published, in OSMCha you can see full details

Hi Elfoniok thanks for the edits, it's very useful to have these paths on the map!

Just a note that it seems you accidentally dragged a an address node (53B Gulf View Road) across the road to a different location. No drama - this is an easy mistake to make, and I've reverted it already.

When you submit your changes and are writing the changeset comment, you can have a look at the list of changes at the bottom of the panel, to double check that your changes were all intended.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95077861

Fixed the merge with osm.org/changeset/95118073
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95036438

Hi kylenz thanks for updating the suburb point locations, the closeness of Vauxhall/Narrow Neck had been bothering me too, and I agree with the locations you've moved them too.

It looks like this changeset unintentionally merged the Narrow Neck suburb node with the address point node for 11A Handley Ave, and dragged it to a new location in the process. See osm.org/node/5504305220/history
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95036438

Hi kwizzy, welcome to OSM and thank you for your edits. Looking good - especially valuable to have the businesses added in Kingsland.

I can see that you have been adding sidewalks as separate ways. This is a legitimate way of mapping sidewalks, as documented on the OSM Wiki: osm.wiki/Sidewalks#Sidewalk_as_separate_way

I'll just note that mapping footpaths this way in Auckland Central can be contentious, as we don't have a local consensus on whether to map them this way. So a heads up that other editors may remove your carefully drawn footpaths.

If you'd like to join community discussions around OSM, there's a mailing list and a slack channel (Maptime Oceania) which are linked to after you make an edit on the website.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/94802370