I would suggest that the name for this segment of road should remain East Coast Road. Named bridges can be captured with the bridge:name tag, or by creating the bridge as a separate object, with man_made=bridge

See this wiki page: osm.wiki/Key:bridge:name

Comment contd: ... so I have left it in the 'alt_name' tag. Also re-added the MOE tags

Hi, welcome again and thanks for the edit. You have requested a review of the changeset.

From what I read on the wiki, either of the tags are suitable for these pile moorings. So man_made=dolphin was OK, but so is seamark:type=pile. Neither of those tags are rendered on the default OSM map, so you won't see any changes there. However you can see your new features on specialised viewers like https://www.openseamap.org/

One minor thing to note is that you have deleted the existing nodes, and added new nodes. It is preferable to update existing nodes (which you did do, for a couple), as this preserves the history of the data. For future reference: in the editor, you can select multiple features, and update their tags all at once.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/112389292

Kia ora Pamela. First off- my apologies, I had incorrectly identified your changes as a bot account's automatic edit, which we occasionally see on OSM. My bad!

Welcome and thanks for contributing to OpenStreetMap :)

Your edit makes much more sense now with that 2017 marina map, which shows those lines between the pile moorings.

If you haven't visited the area recently, please note there is a major construction project in the area meaning the 2017 map and the default aerial images (also from 2017) are now a bit outdated. In the editor, you can select newer imagery from the Background Settings button. I suggest Maxar Premium which is lower quality but much more recent (2021). Maxar imagery shows that at least one row of the moorings has been removed completely.

In regards to the pile moorings, there are point features currently on the map, which are tagged as "man_made=dolphin". These could be updated with more fitting tags. See this page on the wiki: osm.wiki/Seamarks/Moorings

It looks like there are tags described there for each rope/cable between the moorings. I wouldn't tag those as piers.

Note that not all features are necessarily rendered in the default OSM map... So you might go to the effort of drawing and tagging each of those features, and still be left with 'nothing to show for it' on the map

Hi Pamela,

The pile moorings already existed on the map, and the pier connections you have drawn do not exist.

This changeset also includes many other minor changes in the area which are destructive. For example the deletion of features which exist, the removal of valid tags from features, and the addition of unnecessary name tags.

I will revert this changeset in it's entirety,
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111712021

Hi Isaac welcome to OSM and thanks for your contributions, I've had a look at the changesets and you've done a good job adding a new building outline, and a fenceline. in regards to this changeset - the area was already covered by landuse=residential, so adding this area is not required. And please note that a description like 'private property' is not suitable for the name tag. And in this situation (private residential suburb), this degree of detail is already implied. osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111114987

Hi Isaac, welcome to OpenStreetMap, thanks for your contributions. In this changeset, you changed a bus stop into a fire hydrant. This was probably unintended. Please note the editor gives you a chance to review your edits, before publishing, in order to pick up accidents like this
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111114853

Hi Paulie, welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for the contributions. I've reviewed the edit and it all looks good. Always nice to have restaurants kept up to date!

No worries! Reverting is an option but it's much more complicated and only really required when there's been changes to geometry and/or deleted features. In this case just updating the tag value is totally fine - cheers
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110735129

Thanks for following up sjhas, appreciate the background, it's interesting to hear how OSM tags are being used and how the feedback becomes an improvement of the data.

In this case the Streetview image (Jan 2020) is in fact older than the Mapillary image (Nov 7 2020). The 60km/h speed limit was introduced in June 2020.

Another useful reference is this AT map of recent speed limit changes around Auckland: https://atgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a13aa8469db642f283ef3ad241b71882

I did review your other changesets, and looks like they're all in line with the recent changes - thanks for keeping the map up to date :)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110735129

Hi there, I've just reviewed some of your recent speed limit changes. It appears in some cases you are reverting speed limits on roads which have had their speed limits changed recently.
Note that Google Street View may be out of date (and should not be used as a reference for OSM).
For example for Taupaki Rd, you can refer to AT's speed limit dataset, or Mapillary imagery:
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-36.788505&lng=174.57614129997&z=17&pKey=4164112810375545&focus=photo&x=0.5206159084750398&y=0.6207757985440073&zoom=0

AT Open Data:
https://data-atgis.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/d43c489e7027489b88bcdedffc3be6c6_3/explore?location=-36.794481%2C174.580213%2C15.42
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110735129

No worries . I had a look at the other changesets for the residential access laneways and agree that access=private is suitable for those. Thanks again for contributing

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap and thank you for adding access detail to roads. Please ensure you understand the different access values (they might differ from common usage).
Specifically, I'm curious about Godwit Place. Authoritative sources (Land Information New Zealand land parcels) indicate that this is a public no-exit street, and there's no reason for it to be marked permissive.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110648122

Hi, you probably shouldn't tag this address as a shop if the premise isn't open to public. BTW I like the name of your street
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109114072

Looks great, nice work

Yeah it was reverted. There are quite strict quality assurances performed for coastlines and my weird little holes didn't make the cut.

Technically by OSM definitions I think that all the wharves (Queens,Princes,Cooks etc) should be piers, with the coastline being at the seawall, which is approximately the northern edge of quay st carriageway.

Different to the coastlines defined by LINZ.

And a fairly big job in JOSM!

Hi Daniel, thanks for all these changesets, great stuff. Just in case you're feeling frustration about the 50 building limit, thought I'd let you know about this feature:
Add the parameter “&poweruser=true” to the end of the URL when you’re running RapiD, and it will allow you to upload >50 buildings at a time. You will know it's in power user mode when you see a new purple "β" button showing next to the RapID button.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103980337

Hi andrew, thanks for all these changesets, great stuff. Just in case you're feeling frustration about the 50 building limit, thought I'd let you know about this feature:
Add the parameter “&poweruser=true” to the end of the URL when you’re running RapiD, and it will allow you to upload >50 buildings at a time
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103983595

Hi woodpeck, yes this was intentional - insofar as the imported address points were all in one location. The import process now has a better way of handling this, by adding apartment addresses like this as a single node representing an address range, rather than individual nodes for each apartment unit.

#arthurgreylowtrafficarea
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/100599370