I've added the Old DPI site (which council has out for tender for someone to use) and reduced the RRF boundary.

I'm still interested to know more about the rest of the RRF boundary because I thought it was only on the eastern side of the creek.

I hope you guys were safe yesterday with the wild weather, and are having a great holiday.

Great mapping, but you've added the address of the office at Dunwich to the Amity Point campground, too many drinks? :)

Jono

Are you sure adding location:transition=yes to the power pole on Redland Bay Rd and Teesdale Rd is right?

I added this 33kV line (and heaps more in southern Redlands) earlier this year after surveying (yep, driving and running around looking up at conductors), but didn't get around to finish taking this line from the bulk supply substation to the two Capalaba sub-stations. I don't recall this going underground and thought the only section of underground I could find was from the Capalaba substation from Moreton Bay Capalaba Rd.

noexit=yes should be added only to the last node of a highway to confirm there is no ability to continue when there is a nearby highway close by (no need for it at the end of a cul-de-sac), you've got barrier=fence with no gate which defines that there is an obstruction.

Would the waterway under the shopping centre be better tagged as tunnel=flooded rather than tunnel=culvert?

Same review comments as changeset 94893558 apply here.

Hi, welcome to OSM. I have 2 comments about your recent edits in Cornubia:

1. Buildings (i.e. building=*) should be the outline of the building, not a land parcel. They should also not be connected to the golf course.
2. Name tags (e.g. name=12) should not repeat the building's unit number. You can learn more about the name tag on the OSM wiki: osm.wiki/Key:name

Could you please correct your edits. Thanks, Jono

It wasn't vehicle traffic, the embankment used to hold the Cleveland train line before it was rebuilt in the 70s or 80s to newer standards where they needed more gradual curves, you can see the old concrete abutment and concrete pillar in the middle of the lake. There is also a historic plaque with the info.

Personally I see the difference here vs a concrete footpath is most concrete footpaths are only around 1.2m wide, not enough for a motor vehicle, RTV doesn't count :), their purpose is as a footpath. This one physically is capable of a dual track motor vehicle even though motor vehicles are prohibited for you and I. Track being higher up the highway hierarchy than footway, like cycleway is higher than footway. Fire roads in your local nature reserve are exactly the same, council maintenance and fire trucks can physically use it as a dual track vehicle, but access tags say we residents aren't allowed to do the same.

Thanks for the discussion, I'm always trying to learn, tagging definitely isn't cut and dry. I've restored/upgraded it to highway=track.

Fair enough, lot numbers are definitely common before council has allocated street names and numbers.

It's always funny to see real estate advertisements for 123 New Street.

Haha, an hour looking, that's commitment. I'm happy to leave it deleted, there are so many "viewpoints" along our shoreline, probably best to only mark the commonly visited ones. Thanks.

I think most of these buildings you've tagged industrial along Redland Bay Rd are more likely just generically building=commercial or warehouse/retail. According to the wiki building=industrial is for "A building where some industrial process takes place".

The front "building" of Redlands Mazda is all part of the one building, I didn't even notice the roof was different, I assume just a different construction. It has glass windows across the whole front and you can walk straight through from sales area to the service area/cafe. There is a roof to the eastern side though, the undercover service dropoff.

I've updated the rediATM at Central and relocated the 2 elements at Park.

Don't worry I get the same problem with imagery offsets, it is frustrating. The stitching of imagery works so well that you can't see where they blend, but when you've traced it, the offset error shows up a lot.

Hi, is there a reason you've removed admin_level=6 from the Redland City boundary? It is valid and was imported from the PSMA dataset.

I've removed the undocumented developer= tag since you just added operator=. I think I must have just found developer= from iD's autocomplete because the wiki has nothing.

A tip regarding realigning currently mapped objects to aerial imagery is to instead change your imagery offset to match existing data. I used Maxar when I originally mapped this and other things around it like Pine Lodge, but every refresh of their imagery (and other sources) things move around, just find some fences or streets to offset your imagery before making edits. I've moved the former chicken sheds back so they are right when relative to the boundary/fence.

I've also made some other changes in changeset 766598539, including adding that watercourse back and this time adding the culvert under Woodlands Dr. The developers can't remove the watercourse, it'll stay in the backyard of those lots.

Since we don't have permission to copy the developer's proposed estate map, my plan was to map the streets as they become visible, I've added 2 where the turning circles are very clear now. That also means OSM reflects reality rather than worrying about proposed vs construction.

Cheers, Jono

Hi Shan, welcome to OSM.

You've added the tag "name=Little Billibong" which isn't a local name I've ever heard used or seen signposted for this little hole in the ground/pond. The "name" key shouldn't be used as a description, see the OSM wiki for more info: osm.wiki/Key:name. I'd also dispute this being a billabong (spelling) as there is no river/creek feeding it.

The 3 access restriction tags (foot=, bicycle=, horse=) you've added to the ford are unnecessary because the highway=path already has access restrictions. Access tags don't define who can physically use the feature but who is legally allowed to (osm.wiki/Key:access). The highway=path also has horse=no because horses aren't permitted on singletracks in Redland parks, so horse=yes on the ford is incorrect.

Apologies if I've come across harsh, definitely not the intention, OSM tagging is more complicated than it first appears and takes a while to get your head around it.

Let me know if you've got any questions. Jono

Shouldn't building:levels=3 not 1, the underground carpark isn't underground on the northern side so it gets counted as a level, and there are 2 normal levels.

As far as I knew the Redlands Research Facility was only on the eastern side of the creek as I mapped, but I'm not involved with it.

Council brought an old Department of Primary Industries site last year on MacArthur St after it sat there unused for many years (https://www.redlandcitybulletin.com.au/story/6458673/council-looks-for-recreational-ideas-on-old-dpi-site/), so at least that part is out.

Great work. Nice to see Ethel Street fixed up, I had planned to go back into that street since last time running along the old embankment because I could see there was a proper street in there.

Regarding your change from highway=track to path, I tagged it track because it is like a rail trail or fire road (or "forest track" as per wiki), suitable for a 2 track vehicle even if only council is allowed to use it for maintenance now (the reason for motor_vehicle=no) since trains don't use it. I'd like to understand the change as it appears I've tagged it wrong.

Thanks, Jono

I didn't add the node, but I can understand why Rob added it a year ago. The wiki says "A place where tourists, visitors, hikers might like to visit and take photographs", and I think that spot does qualify under those guidelines. Our coastline has a lot of good viewpoints, but do you feel it doesn't qualify? I think it is definitely the most accessible viewpoint in the GS Wetlands.