Hi, what is the source for these changes? Also, you've added power=plant and an alt_name tag to way 698041954, which is a road.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/163190661

Hi, is the AEMO MMS database available under a suitable open license? It's not a listed data source in the Wiki, and if it's suitable it would be great to add it there.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/163219645

Thanks for that! I'll have to double check Every Door's handling of 1800 numbers.

I've made those changes in osm.org/changeset/163142250
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/163128092

A better way to do this might be oneway=yes and oneway:bicycle=no, because now you have a highway segment that is impossible for other vehicles. Those two tags together should allow for the bicycle routing to work correctly.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/163128092

A better way to do t
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/163128092

Hey there, good work! One suggestion would be to press Q to square off any building you draw, it should handle the 45 degree angles fine in iD as well.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/163006483

Without a source backing it up, agree with reverting it.

What would make this road a tertiary road, considering it's just a small section leading nowhere? You've also made the _link roads a normal tertiary road, which is wrong, they should remain trunk_link regardless of how Forsyth Road is classified, as they should correspond to the highest classification they're connected to.

You had drawn it as if it was a real, functioning road. If it is planned (which I haven't been able to find any proof of so far) then there are suitable ways to tag this, however this generally wouldn't happen until construction has started and it's obvious where the road is going to be.

What's the source for this? There's also the service roads that haven't been renamed.

Considering it's not visible on Bing imagery, and there's not any signs of construction along here on ESRI imagery, I highly doubt this road has been constructed yet, if it exists at all. Can't find any information on it online.

The highway=residential/maxspeed=80 combination seems suspicious too, if this road did exist, I'd expect it to be more heavily used from first appearances.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162913197

You've commented that on your own changeset, not the original one, btw.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162914132

I agree with kurisubrooks, you’ve got 3 mappers, including a former DWG member, who all disagree with these being deleted, I’d like to see where people have agreed that minor issues (that are still not that inaccurate and provide accurate data in that there are houses there) are worthy of straight out deletion instead of just fixing them.

They're not perfect, but they're still accurate in that there's a house in that location. Even people can't map houses perfectly, I've corrected plenty that have been mapped manually.

Deleting those objects means that instead of knowing there's a house there, we now don't know that. That's a significant loss when you delete several streets worth.

If you're not happy with the minute level of inaccuracy from these buildings, either fix them up, or raise the issue with the people importing them.

It's not misleading for houses to be slightly off from what they are, as long as positioning is right. It's not perfect, but it's still accurate enough to remain in OSM.

If you're not happy with the accuracy of these buildings, then engage with the people adding them in, but once they've been added in, the right thing to do is to fix them, not delete them.

You'd just make a new one with the changes, however in this case I've done it already :)

Hi, descriptive names shouldn't be used on OSM, "Toilet and shower", you can indicate that it includes a shower using shower=yes
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162837751

I've restored the deleted building in osm.org/changeset/162838337, please don't delete items that do exist just because you're not happy with the quality, instead improve them or leave them.

I agree with aharvey, while some of these aren't perfect, some of the deleted ones are reasonably accurate.

Deleting the ones that are somewhat off isn't the right answer, either correct them, put a fixme tag on the problematic ones, leave a note, or see if someone in the community can help with fixing them.

They're still houses in those locations, and building outlines that need a bit of a touch up are better than not having them there at all.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162804346