Key word being generally. A lot of the time they’ll match up, but not always. We also have more specific tagging standards for Australia, which is what I use whenever I’ve changed the class of a highway, since it shows what is used in this area.

If those facts are government sources, then as you have been told before (by a member of the OSMF board, the board you repeatedly say you send my changesets to), that information isn't 1:1 with OSM's highway classification. OSM's most overarching guidelines say that ground truth is the most important, we map what's on the ground.

If a government source doesn't match what you'd see looking at the road itself, then you don't follow that source and you match what's on the ground.

If you drove along Gawler Street, Park Terrace, and Waterloo Corner Road, you'd see one of those 3 roads as being slower with less traffic.

And vandalism has a specific meaning, you keep using it despite the fact that my edits are not deliberate destruction, but an attempt to improve a map based on resources available, knowledge, and experience of these areas.

Those roads are all connector roads linking higher classed roads to residential roads, with no/minimal houses on them. Can you provide some kind of reasoning for why they aren't a tertiary road that isn't just claiming routing reasons?

And like I said, you could make an argument that tertiary is valid, and I agree, so I've done that here: osm.org/changeset/145315246.

My interpretation of what? Ground truth shows that this road is not a residential road, and considering it sits between two roads classed as secondary with no actual difference between those two roads and this one, residential makes absolutely no sense.

You could make an argument that this (and Grand Trunkway) would be better classed as tertiary, but definitely not residential or unclassified.

Plus, we don't choose highway tags based on routing, we choose them based on the nature of the road.

Hi, this isn't a residential section and secondary matches the road use.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145314458

Hey, it looks like osm.org/way/301772546 and osm.org/way/301772545 are still named Gundy Street, you might need to correct there too!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145310501

Has the court house been relocated/closed? If not, the police station should have stayed as a node, since it doesn't take up the whole of the building.

Hi there, the sculpture trail is already mapped as a footway, is there a need for the separate node?

Hi there, you've added a name to a path and three nodes, are you able to verify these are real names in some way, a photo of signs would be ideal? These names are quite suspicious and seem fictional.

Hi there and welcome to OSM!

A couple of quick tips, you've made a changeset that spans two continents, and left a very non-descriptive comment.

I'd recommend reviewing the following wiki pages for some tips around changeset size and comments:
osm.wiki/Changeset
osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

I'd also recommend squaring off buildings using the Q button (works in both iD and JOSM) unless a building is 100% not a rectangular shape.

On osm.org/node/11415684525, you also need to put the phone tag as an international format. If the phone number isn't one dialable from outside of NZ, it can go in a phone:NZ tag. I believe +64 3 231 3481 would be the correct way to do this.

Outside of that, looks pretty good, thanks for contributing, and feel free to jump into the various OSM community spaces!

You said "fortera has gone ahead and split the roads now." I was asking where I had done that.

I apologise for the mistake, it appeared that you had with the new ways you created, which is why I asked. If you had said you hadn't first up, I would have gone and double checked straight away and just fixed that section instead.

Where have I split the roads? The road is split south of Ames Drive, and already was split, and north I actually merged a series of sections mapped as dual carriageway that aren’t.

And by engaging in changeset comments constructively, you can say that if that’s the case

You’d made enough of a change to show that you’d made several ways, which means you’re making changes to intersections without actually looking at them. I’d recommend at least seeing what aerial imagery shows when making that much of a change

This here is a perfect example, DataSA's dataset does in fact list Ruskin Road as a local road, but OSM (and anyone looking at the actual use/purpose of the road) wouldn't think that it's a residential road, especially with the info we have on how we classify roads

And the problem is that government source doesn't match OSM's tagging. Just because a source exists that we can use, doesn't mean we bring it in 1:1. Ground truth always prevails, that's at the core of OSM, and we can't assume that external data is perfect as is for OSM.

Local in DataSA doesn't specifically mean residential, and DataSA's classifications aren't 1:1 with OSM's classifications. A 100km/h road that links two localities, with the only houses on them being right at the ends in those localities, doesn't meet the description of highway=residential (osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dresidential)

highway=tertiary is meant to be used for roads connecting towns/localities, exactly like this. (osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtertiary)

osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads has a good comparison of the two (and other highway tags) with an Australian perspective.

Hi there Sydney Airport Parking, you've removed amenity=parking from this and another object, that tag is what actually marks these as parking areas, you'd want to add those back in!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145023241