Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thank you for the edits, good catch on the spelling mistake. The user who submitted the original feature addition was very committed to spelling it "Symth" - they even spelt it that way in their changeset comment :)
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/86116056

These are not tertiary roads, Please can you tag these as driveways: highway=service, service=driveway
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/86081436

According to LINZ, the short stretch of road immediately south of the rail crossing is still Porters Road (hence the building on the west is number 5 Porters Road) - but with the closing of the level crossing, the situation on the ground has changed.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/85966684

Looking at this article from the council publication. it appears that "Eskdale Reserve Network" is a conglomeration of several named parks: https://ourauckland.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/articles/news/2020/03/north-shores-eskdale-reserve-gets-full-makeover/

Maybe in OSM it would be good to still have the individual parks identified (eg Birkenhead Domain), and then Eskdale Reserve Network as an overarching multipolygon relation.

I did see that in GeoMaps this is all called 'Eskdale Reserve', but it seems that this might not be the best representation of what's 'on the ground'.

BTW I do not personally know the area well at all, just going off that OurAuckland article and maps like this: https://ourauckland.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/media/23314/kaipatiki-kauri-explorer-2018.pdf
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/85916363

Hi lcmortensen, thanks for this. Looking on the OSM Wiki page I can see that 'Auckland Wards' was at some point suggested to be admin_level=6. But I agree that Local Boards are more useful on the map as an actual administrative unit, and that Wards, being only for the purpose of electing council members, are less meaningful on OSM.

If you're interested, would you like to update the wiki with this reasoning? Or I'll have a go at it later myself:
osm.wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/85137123

Hi Grdwalker thank you for the contribution. I have reviewed the changeset as requested, and it looks all good. I like to see these neighbourhood walkways on the map!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84366974

As long as a feature (be it a segment of road, path through a park, pathway between residential blocks) is part of a named route, it can be part of the relation. It doesn't necessarily need to be directly connected to the other features in the relation, or to a wider network.

I would say that AT's local quiet cycling routes are a textbook example of the "Local cycling routes" described on this wiki page: osm.wiki/Relation:route

Some have already been added and are in states of disrepair, for example the Dom rd east cycle route I linked to above

Welcome! Further to the comment above - I would suggest using the JOSM editor if you want to add many buildings, as it makes the process MUCH faster and easier for you, check out this video to learn more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcKewl94jR4
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/83962412

Also, you seem to have accidentally dragged a footway node from the Domain over onto wellesley street, I have reversed this with changeset 83912579
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/83910321

I would say it's an optimistic stretch to tag these streets as cyclestreets, my reading of cyclestreet is that a bike should expect priority over cars - either legally or by signage and infrastructure.

If the goal is to map AT's quiet cycling routes, these would be best added as relations, for example the dominion road safe cycle streets relation: osm.org/relation/5547747

These route relations can be seen as a blue highlight, when switched onto the 'Cycle Map' layer on openstreetmap.org
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/83910321

Hi PabloNZ, welcome to OpenStreetMap and thank you for your edit. I see you have requested a review of your changeset: You have added the building correctly and tagged it with its address well.

The one small problem is that you have tagged two features with the address: You have tagged the building polygon itself, and also the node on one of the corners. Both of these are correct methods to tag the address - but it should be one or the other, not both. So you should remove the address tags from one of the features (I would suggest removing from node 7412596458)

if you want to see why this can be a problem, look at how your house is rendering on the main map at openstreetmap.org at the highest zoom level - the address is rendering twice.

You can read more about the concept of 'one feature, one OSM object' on the wiki: osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/83669613

Hi ralley, first time I've seen this key being used, I'm curious!
How - are you manually mapping colours or using some detection algorithm first?
Why - The OSM Wiki says this is "Mostly used for 3D mapping' - is that the reason you're adding this detail?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/83331075

Hi Rudy, it looks like you probably intended to delete address 7B Mayville Ave, but instead accidentally dragged it over to Astley Ave? I have corrected this by deleting the address point, in changeset 83283718
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/83281067

Disagree with removing the footpaths which were mapped as separate ways, especially around Union St/ Nelson/Hobson. The roads around here are multi lane and generally unsuitable for pedestrian routing - so it makes sense to have well-mapped footpaths and crossings, so that pedestrian routing correctly makes use of crossings and doesn't suggest impossible/dangerous directions.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/82748767

Not sure why this changeset has been flagged "Mapbox: Spam text"
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/82502065

I've made some further, related adjustments in changeset 82160489 . Hopefully this will see the footpath routing no longer taking people onto the roundabout.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/82091254

This new footpath is not connected to the wider road network (except where it is crossing the medical centre driveway), so it won't be used in any routing - or at least, not as you'd want it to.

Footpaths along the side of the road typically shouldn't be mapped as their own way, unless there's significant physical separation from the road, or there is some routing reason that it makes sense.

Was there a particular issue you were wanting to address with this footpath around the block?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/82091791

driveways should be tagged as highway:service_road and service:driveway

other tags are unnecessary, eg the name tag should be for signposted or locally known names

Have realised now that some of the removed bus stops (eg southern part of Ostend) are still bus stops, but only for school bus routes. I will re-add these at a later time. will leave note on map
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/77791614

This changeset has now been reverted with changeset 77791496
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/77791325