Sorry, forgot to add:

Thanks,
Andrew Welch, OSMF Data Working Group

(translated via LibreTranslate)

嗨,你把Bing列为线人 但Bing没有显示正在建设的高速公路 你能告诉我这是什么来源吗?

谢谢
安德鲁·韦尔奇,OSMF 数据工作组

Hi, you've listed Bing as a source, however Bing doesn't show that motorway under construction. Can you let me know what the source for this is?

Hi, greens shouldn't be mapped inside of fairway/rough ways, the fairway/rough should be mapped as a multipolygon, with anything inside of it marked as an inner of that multipolygon. How this is currently mapped says that the green is also the rough, which is obviously wrong. You've also done the same thing with sand traps, these should be inners of a multipolygon relationship if they're entirely surrounded by a fairway/rough.

Hi, is there actually a railway buffer stop on the edge of a bunker here?

If it's the same object and they were mapped as a node before and are remaining a node, it's best practice to move the node, not delete and recreate. This was done for most of the existing campsites that have been updated.

Thanks for confirming the source too. It's best to add that in when you edit, especially for something like this that can't be determined from aerial imagery, that way other mappers know that you've checked in person and it's not potentially from an undisclosed source online.

Hi there, just wondering what the source of this data is? It's also best to just edit existing objects instead of deleting and creating new ones, as there was additional data that you've now removed as part of this.

I'm thinking this should probably be reverted and done again once the data source is clear and known to be acceptable for OSM.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/167558279

Why did you remove it? It's a valid tag on a relation in an entirely different country. Please don't remove tags if you're not sure whether it's correct.

You deleted a tag from an object in Australia, which I have restored.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166831068

I've corrected it in osm.org/changeset/166946301 for you
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166914517

The address formatting looks good to me, aadr:state, addr:postcode and addr:suburb are redundant in Australia since we have that fully covered by relations and that can be obtained easily when needed.

For the phone number, you'll want the international format, in this case it would be phone=+61 8 8724 2222
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166914517

If it's the same as other streets around it (i.e. Winwood) then residential is perfectly fine.

The access=private tags you'll definitely want to remove if they're public streets now though.

Hi there,

Has the actual road been changed physically in any way? If not, I think these should still be service toads, potentially marked as service=alley too. highway=service doesn't indicate a privately owned road.

access=private should also be remove from Little Winwood Street and Queen Street if they're now public roads too.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166898383

Also, a link to Google Drive likely isn't going to work for an image, you're best to link to an image on your website.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166857281

osm.wiki/Key:access has a bit of a better description, but the general consensus for Australia is access=private is preferred over access=no in the majority of cases.

Hey, the paths you've set as access=no, are these the SA Water access tracks? If so, they should be access=private. access=no means no access whatsoever, access=private indicates that they're only allowed to be used with express permission, which is usually more accurate in these situations, since access=no means even SA Water can't use them.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166691691

It's not the end of the world really, someone might come along afterwards and merge some of them back together but that shouldn't be a problem.

If you're interested in doing more OSM editing then learning JOSM is definitely worth a try!

Ahh I've just realised you were using relatify, that might be why it was doing that! I might report that upstream.

Usually I've just used JOSM for PT routes, but it's a bit more complex of course.

Hi, just wondering if there's a reason why some roads have been split into so many individual sections? It's not obvious from a quick look, and if there's no tagging difference or splits needed to make a relation work, it's better to leave it as one longer section.

If you mean Google Street View, that isn't a source we can use. There might be imagery on Bing Streetside, or on sources like Mapillary, Mapilio or KartaView that we're allowed to use.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166600941

Hi, bitumen seal should still be marked as asphalt, thats the tag OSM uses for all forms of bitumen. I'd check out the page for the surface tag on the wiki for more information.