Thanks! In future it would be good to have a mention of this either in the source field (e.g. "locations approximate") or as fixme text on the individual nodes. Otherwise closing the OSM note removes the only indication we have that the locations are actually not accurately mapped.

How was the location of the shops determined? Neither the note not the imagery would show this?
Could you please confirm that a permitted source was used?

Belconnen Outdoor Power Centre is definitely closed for fixing not completely gone. It could be marked as disused or closed but shouldn't be deleted.

Hi, Just wondering what your source is for removing Taj Agra. Last time I went past there I thought they were just fixing after the explosion.
I have also been trying to add disused:amenity=yes rather than simply removing points.

Thanks! I had no ground truth that they were coffee and tea, so very happy that you've confirmed that.

Hi, just wondering why college st was downgraded to tertiary?

Thanks!

Thanks!

I don't think this change is appropriate, sorry.
The name of the cafe actually does use the accents, see e.g. on their website: https://thecrepecafe.com/
I suppose you could add an additional name:en if you would like.

Is it correct that the path from knaggs crs to Birrell st is not lit? There's an OSM note that says that it is, and it does look like there are lampposts in the imagery?osm.org/way/38745388

It's basically the same premises with two brands, so not sure how to map, hence why I left it as two POIs. It's hard to tell whether they are actually one or two businesses, but they do share the same space.

Hi, this deletes a "wood" of deciduous trees that is not yet visible in Jan 2020 imagery osm.org/way/914301288
I'd like to re-add it. Do you think it makes more sense to add tree rows or individual trees instead? The trees are obviously not mature yet, so they're not going to feel like a wood for many years.

Just want to say I am annoyed by this change and don't endorse it.
waterway=riverbank was being actively discussed on the tagging list, and pushing through the so-called "river modernization" does not reflect a consensus view.
I'm not going to do anything about this, but I thought I'd let you know I'm unhappy.

Thanks. I've now edited the wiki and responded to an existing conversation there, and added a comment on GitHub.

Not sure what you mean about the wiki being specific in regards to Facebook - it doesn't specify what to do in this situation, where the Facebook page is also an organisation's official website. I intend to add back the website tag, but will leave the contact:facebook as is. Please don't "deduplicate" it.

I should add that I'm happy to systematically add contact:facebook when I do this, though in my opinion we should then also have tags for Menulog, ubereats, easi etc.

I'm tagging website so that the official website of an organisation is known. This is a classic problem in OSM that the meaning of a missing tag is ambiguous. I could obviously tag website=no, or website=facebook but hopefully you'll agree that tagging the actual Facebook url is a better solution.

Please don't do this. If an organisation doesn't have any other website, then their Facebook page is their website.
I don't mind adding contact:facebook but the existing website tag shouldn't be removed without checking that the organisation has no alternative website.

I suppose it's just the usual issue that it's not as pleasant an experience to add new features to a map that has partially overlapping areas and areas that only partially match physical features, and fixing such issues for the whole of Florey is a big job. I'll get used to it.

Hi, This seems to introduce inconsistencies with existing landuse boundaries and makes the area more difficult to maintain. Do you have any plans or suggestions for resolving this? As someone actively mapping this area I would have preferred smaller imports at one time.