Crud, I somehow made a slight move of many of the road geometries. Unintended - I will try to revert this now.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/87599100

From what I can tell, this is outdated information and the Anglican church congregation does not meet here, and no longer goes by this name

Hold on I was confused by the two different changes in the changeset. Though I remain confused about why Waiheke Island Anglican Church is located here?

Please be more careful with your imports - you have added a Catholic church as denomination=anglican, and the church already existed, so you have duplicated the feature.

Oops didn't leave the right changeset comment : also added retail landuse and POI at Calliope Road

Appreciate wanting to add further detail to the facility, but I don't think this changeset made very good use of the tags available, and is generally breaking the one-feature-one-element principle: osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element

amenity=social_facility is intended to be used for the entire site, as is already mapped with osm.org/way/96690158/

From the wiki for the amenity=social_facility:
"Draw an area area for the campus of the facility, comprising buildings and outdoor areas. Apply the tag amenity=social_facility and specify its type with social_facility=*."

Also there was an error in your process where you've accidentally added social_facility:assisted_living to every node in the building polygons. For example this node is one of dozens: osm.org/node/7387974640
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/86842462

Reverted with 86134424

Reverted with Changeset 86133611

I have reverted this changeset, with #86133611

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