To be honest I'm not sure why these railway lines are even mapped. There's no source information for the original geometry. The lines and the route of the lines is not evident in the real world, there's a great big shopping centre and carpark there.
osm.wiki/Tag:railway=abandoned
says "A tag to map former railways, where the rails have been removed but the route is still visible with ties/sleepers, signals or other railroad right of way signs or infrastructure."
I'd say none of the mapped abandoned rail lines on the Mornington side of the Nepean highway meet this criteria.
(General comments for all to respond on - not directed at you Ewen)

There's a clear mapillary image for one of them. The others are unclear in mapillary.
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=794920641165298&lat=-37.945557237183&lng=144.99789445468&z=17&focus=photo&x=0.39344660239325757&y=0.7305136029809556&zoom=1.8575851393188856

I'd probably want to tag these as highway=residential and access=permissive.

There's mapillary imagery, although the sign is very hard to make out.
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=831792124100124

I believe the top of the sign says "Central Park Estate. Private Property"

The estate has fair coverage in mapillary, but the signs on the way in and out are skipped.

How did you source these changes? It's impossible to tell from Bing maps if a path is a cycle path, shared path, or walking only path.
The path 31659577 is now walking only, and yet it forms part of a LCN cycling relation, and for years has been mapped as a cycle path.
A small amount of searching gives us this map, which shows Hallam Road having a "Other Path Link" type with a bicycle and pedestrian illustrated. https://www.casey.vic.gov.au/hallam-valley-trail
The more northern part of this path was changed from cycling to foot only by you some 30 days earlier.

There's archives of talk-au at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/

There are 30 modified ways in this changeset, mostly path->footway tag changes.
What does this have to do with the changeset comment of "updates to cycling permission to align with Victoria Road Regulations" ?

I've returned these 3 to bike=no

Several of the ways in this changeset have been modified from bike=no to bike=yes, even when previous mappers have clearly indicated there's no bike access.
Could you please indicate the source for your information that these paths are legally open for bike riding?

Examples are osm.org/way/818252462
osm.org/way/178419278
osm.org/way/60431971

I have reverted most of the changes in this changeset.
These are all dedicated foot paths, and not for bicycles.

Looks like you accidentally moved part of Anderson St in Melbourne. Way #12985474.
Can you please check.

LOL, I've not been either. Classic armchair mapping.
The walk down Sweetwater Creek is nice.

On this page osm.wiki/Strava
it says:
"Data Permission - Allowed for tracing!
OpenStreetMap users have permission (reconfirmed in November 2019) to use Strava heatmap data for tracing into OSM only. For all other non-personal uses, including tracing into other datasets, please contact Strava Metro."

Hello mattb4, welcome to OSM, and thanks for the contribution.
I had a question about the source of the running track shape. I see in one source attribution you've listed nearmap.
My understanding is that we cannot use nearmap for imagery and tracing anymore (not for several years).
I cannot find the running track in any of the imagery layers in the iD editor.

Not all of the buildings are square...

However some are casually drawn, and id didn't permit complete precision. If i'd used josm and spent more time then it could be slightly better.

However all considered I think these are quite representative of the actual buildings and *way* better than what was there before.

Ah, I'd only seen the individual areas changing scrub to woods. I'd not noticed that the whole thing had been tagged scrub. I remember putting all those areas in just to fix this but clearly had forgotten to remove the overall thing!

Hi, you've swapped all scrub for wood. I wondered how you managed to arrive at a distinction between the two for this location. When i've visited it's very difficult to distinguish (especially as a non-naturalist like me) which parts of the gardens are scrub, scrubby woodland and woodland. Would love to know if there was an actual guide i could be following.

Hi Leon K,
You certainly get a lot of mapping done! :)
You and I map similar areas, so I'd like to ask if you could possibly add Changeset Comments to your work?
I like to see what's been updated near me and it's difficult to have to drill into each changeset to get a flavour of the change.
Much appreciated,
Adam

Hi girabibit, thanks for your contributions. You list the source as 'knowledge', but I don't understand how this can be the case in order to get the building geometries correct. I suspect that the source is in reality Bing imagery, and that the name and tags are based on local knowledge. So perhaps the source tags should be source=Bing, source:name=Local Knowledge

osm.wiki/Key:source

What is the name source for these back alleys? As a resident in these streets for over 20 years I've never heard these names, nor seen on a sign or map. Thames St, Tyne St, Lyne St