Hi chatnz, in this changeset you have created a duplicate feature of the school. The school was already mapped at this location. Perhaps you were meaning to adjust the shape of the school? If so, I recommend deleting the duplicate feature, and adjusting the shape of the existing feature: osm.org/way/736726984/history#map=19/-36.92810/174.74621
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154254195

Hi chatnz, welcome to OSM thank you for your edits. You're correct that the default LINZ aerial imagery layer is quite old (circa 2017). Try switching the background imagery layer to 'Bing' to see more recent aerial imagery. Cheers
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154164219

Hi Alex, thanks for making your reasoning clear in the changeset comment. However this is not a valid reason to create a duplicate feature. The issue of not being able to search for schools mapped as polygons is a problem with the data consumer (ie the map you mention), not an issue in the underlying OSM data. If you'd like assistance in tackling the problem you're seeing, the changeset comments aren't a great place for it so I would suggest posting a topic in the OSM Community page: https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/oceania/73
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154123172

Hi Alex, the changes you have made in this changeset are using outdated aerial imagery (LINZ aerial imagery, which currently dates from 2017 in this area). Please use Bing aerial as more recent imagery to refer to. Can you please use more meaningful notes about what changes you have made, rather than "This is my local neighbourhood" - which does not tell us what changes were made. Thanks
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154038678

Similarly, you added Marist School as a point (by adding detail to the address node). This is fine, except that the school is already mapped as an area: osm.org/way/24532021

So now the school is duplicated
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154036023

Hi Alex, welcome to OpenStreetMap and thank you for your updates to the map. Note that the Mount Albert Aquatic Centre was already mapped as a building at osm.org/way/60846989 . Because it already exists as a building, it is not necessary to add it as a node. This concept is called "one feature, one OSM element": osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element

Cheers
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154036023

Looks good. Welcome to OSM editing and thank you for your updates to the Tāmaki Link route relation.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153807678

Hi you dragged node 11726186943 with this edit
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153646719

Hi Sucl, This changeset made several updates to Wynyard Point referring to very old aerial imagery. There has been significant change in this area, I suggest using the Bing aerial imagery to see the more recent changes. Also your change to the centre span of the harbour bridge was not required, as the lane layout was already well-captured using the lanes tags. Accordingly, I have reverted this changeset in my CS# 152476295
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152407952

Hi Sucl,
Welcome to OSM and thanks for your edits.
Can you please use more meaningful changeset comments - this helps make it clear what your intentions were with each changeset, for other contributors who can review your edits. Currently you are only entering 'Updated' which doesn't tell us much.
Cheers
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152397253

Welcome to OpenStreetMap, thank you for your update at Hastings Street/Liquidambar Drive. I have now also drawn in the new buildings, which are visible in the newer Bing aerial imagery.

I suggest leaving a changeset discussion comment on the previous user's changeset #149294619, rather than reverting their change entirely. And/or set the access=private tag yourself if you have the local knowledge to confirm that

Welcome to OSM, thanks for adding a missing path. Note that the path should connect to the road feature for Bute Road, in order to be connected to the wider network

Hi ParaBala, welcome to OpenStreetMap editing, thank you for your contributions. I have reviewed your edits and seen the shortcut you have added between Salamanca Road and Aralia Road. I appreciate your intention of improving the pedestrian network in this area, but unfortunately this shortcut is not suitable for mapping in OSM because it cuts through private residential properties. As it is not a path that would be expected to be used by the general public, it should not be included in the OSM project, at risk of causing confusion or conflict with residents.

Hey kiwiiwik, Yes this correction is perfect, thanks :)

Hi kiwiiwik,
Thanks for your updates to the bridge. Glad to hear it has reopened.
I have noticed that in this changeset you have accidentally moved a node for the address #186 Botany Road (node 5411393316), onto the neighbouring Cantora Avenue. These accidents typically happen when dragging to navigate the map, and inadvertently selecting and dragging the node in the process.
I'll let you have a go at fixing it. I'll check in and fix it later if you've missed this message.
Cheers

Hi Codearty, welcome to OpenStreetMap, thank you for your updates. I have reviewed your changeset.
It looks good, I have minor suggestions for improvement:
1. When editing in Auckland, check the other Background imagery available, as the default LINZ aerial imagery is quite out of date.
2. When drawing buildings, right click the building and select Square to make it nice and squared (shortcut key is Q).
3. The address should exist either on the building polygon, OR as an independent node, but not both. This is to avoid duplicated data.
Cheers, keep it up.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/146613644

Hi WoedEel, this is the second time you've made this change here. Can you please explain why you are doing this? You did not respond to the previous discussion at osm.org/changeset/140414606
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144914120

Welcome to OSM and thank you for your edits. I have reviewed this changeset can propose the following improvements: ideally the address tags should be only on either the address node, or on the building feature, but not both (premise is to try not to duplicate information across multiple features). Secondly, the new building feature you've create is overlapping with the already exisiting building, which isn't very clean. I would suggest splitting up the rest of the building sections into their own building features, or look into using the building:part tag instead (which are intended to overlap with building features).
Cheers, keep it up
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/143451226

Hey, I am curious where are you getting the route colours from for these updates?