Yeah, that seems to be a key concern as I've noticed errors in some places. I've been crosschecking this particular case with street view and my own survey of the area in this case, and I hope that others do the same

I've gone ahead and added it to the page osm.wiki/w/index.php?title=Contributors&oldid=1958298 I presume the way I've added it is mostly correct. Thanks for pointing it out

Hi, it seems that the (actually) motorway_link was already mapped here (osm.org/way/76946882) but incorrectly marked as a primary_link?

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

Whoops, thats a misspelling on my part. I've gone ahead and fixed it; thanks for pointing it out

G'day Fizzie41,

Just letting you know I've moved (what appears to be) an accidentally moved node in changeset #79962124 as part of 2 roads.

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

Yep, as freebeer commented the "q" key will do it. Also the beta iD v3 allows you to square multiple buildings or objects at once and includes a right angle tool if you are interested

Cheers, I tried as well as I could

G'day lu_an,

I've found 66 changesets where you've used "Seen on Google" as the source for your information. As part of the contributor terms that you agreed to when signing up to OpenStreetMap, you can only use non-copyright sources for information unless given special permission. We have not been given permission from Google to use their data, and I am of the opinion that all 66 changesets should be reverted due to copyright infringement, unless the source you have put is incorrect?

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

(Translated with Google Translate)

Olá lu_an,

Encontrei 66 conjuntos de alterações em que você colocou "Visto no Google" como fonte de suas informações. Como parte dos termos do colaborador com os quais você concordou ao se inscrever no OpenStreetMap, você só pode usar fontes que não sejam de direitos autorais para obter informações, a menos que seja dada permissão especial. Não recebemos permissão do Google para usar seus dados e acho que todos os 66 conjuntos de alterações devem ser revertidos devido à violação de direitos autorais, a menos que a fonte que você colocou esteja incorreta?

Obrigado,
ortho_is_hot

G'day Laurent, and thanks for your contributions.

Just with the building outlines, for future reference you can use the "square" key in the editor to ensure that all angles in your outlines are right angles as generally this is the case with buildings.

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

Translated with Google Translate:
Bonjour Laurent, et merci pour vos contributions.

Juste avec les contours du bâtiment, pour référence future, vous pouvez utiliser la touche "carré" dans l'éditeur pour vous assurer que tous les angles dans vos contours sont des angles droits comme c'est généralement le cas avec les bâtiments.

À votre santé,
ortho_is_hot

That's a fair point, I wasn't aware of that page Cheers

G'day,

In regards to the deleted of height, we haven't been given permission from Google to use their data as it is a non copyrighted source, so this change should be reverted in my opinion.

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

G'day,

In regards to the changeset source, we haven't been given permission by google to use streetview imagery for OSM data and thus it is a non copyrighted source.

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

Hi there,

Would the phone number not be +61 4 2319 9859 instead of +61 423 199 859 as 4 is technically an area code?

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

I checked the edit and everything looks good! If you have any questions you can reach out as well.

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

G'day BlueishWater3, and welcome to OpenStreetMap.

In regards to the carpark you have added, this node osm.org/node/7081758112 has been tagged with amenity=parking however it is part of the carpark area that you have made (osm.org/way/758294597). I would suggest removing the amenity=parking from the node as the area has the tags already.

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

G'day mueschel,

I was unaware of this tagging scheme but thank you for pointing out the error. I have now adopted this mechanism.

Thanks again,
ortho_is_hot

G'day KanaLee,

I've noticed 20 changesets with this description (albeit from a month ago). As per the discussion on the mailing list and subsequent updates to the wiki (osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Local_Traffic_Only), it's been established that motor_vehicle:advisory=destination is for situations where the access is advisory only, whereas the OSM access tag is for legal restrictions. Based on the changeset source, unless you know the ground reality, I think that these changes should be reverted, as there is a difference between advisory and legal restrictions. The original access=destination could all have been legal requirements and the changes suggest that they are only advisory. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

G'day goodalll,

In future, please refrain from adding non-existent elements into the OSM database. I appreciate that they were removed within 2 hours of them being added, but several maps may cache or otherwise store OSM data for extended periods rather than use a live feed, leading them to store incorrect data. There are likely ways to go about testing routing without using the main OSM database.

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

G'day ChristianMapper,

In regards to the classification of Kullabia Road—from the looks of it, I would say its better suited to be a minor/unclassified road rather than a residential road as if it's not a tertiary road (the downgrade you made) then it's probably a minor/unclassified road.

The Australian Tagging Guidelines tends to agree? osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Urban_Areas

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

'survey' is generally the source used in changeset tagging for when you've gone out to a location, looked around, perhaps taken a few reference photos as you have, and added into the map. Technically we can't use Google Maps even as a reference, but within iD there is the ability to use the "LPI NSW Base Map", which shows address numbers for buildings from which you can add those into OSM as a ODbL compatible source