If you know for sure that all the paths are shared then you're more than welcome to to a batch upgrade with the preset (all it does is set highway=cycleway foot=designated bicycle=designated). Last time I was there I did see some shared paths so I presume that most/if not all are shared paths. A cycleway with foot access seems to be a good indication to me that they are.

If they are all tagged with foot=yes then adding the preset won't change how routing is done (routers would know that pedestrians can use it), but it makes it slightly *more* correct, since both foot and bicycle are explicitly designated by signage.

Great, thanks for the important change; in iD theres an option for source e.g. survey or website etc
Thanks, ortho_is_hot

Hi there,
Just for future reference you can use the "Shared Path" preset in iD if both cyclists and pedestrians are legally permitted to use the pathway which will set the tags as set out in the ATG.

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

Hi there, just wondering what the source for this speed limit change is as there is none listed in the changeset source?

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

This changeset has been reverted in osm.org/changeset/86612338 in order to restore the deleted object's history. The changes made have been recreated (osm.org/changeset/86612388). Regards, ortho_is_hot

G'day in future reference, you can use the existing way to make the road opened instead of deleting it and wiping the history.

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

G'day Stan G,

When adding speed limits with StreetComplete, it is generally good to add the 50km/hr speed limit as well as stating the fact that the speed limit type is the default urban limit.

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

Hey Stan G, and thanks for your contributions,

Generally when adding buildings, its best practice to use the orthogonalize tool in order to ensure that all angles in a building is 90 degrees, as is the case with most buildings in real life. In iD, you can do that with the "Q" key.

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

I'll be honest, I don't know the roads in Bellevue Hill nearly as well as my own area, so I'll leave that up to local knowledge; however I do agree that Edgecliff Road should be upgraded to tertiary along its whole section, most likely because it has no overtaking markings for a very large if not all of its length. Also on the topic of this, is Ocean Avenue/William Street to the north really worthy of secondary (I would think that its more tertiary)? And that little stub of Kiaora Road as you mentioned probably should be residential for the whole length.

G'day, and welcome to OpenStreetMap. The church outline that you added in this changeset was already added by you in a previous changeset. osm.org/node/7571399811 -- osm principle of one feature one object applies, so either the point or the way should be deleted? (note the tiles may take a while to update which is why you wouldn't have seen it appear straight away).

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/85967475

Hi, is this not a tertiary road? It looks to me to be a good link between Manning Road and Bellevue Road

New edits look good, thanks for correcting that. I see what you mean with the photo being old, that was just the latest usable image I could find

G'day syntaxfx, and welcome to OpenStreetMap,
dw
In regards to your speed limit changes, the way after the speed limit sign on the offramp/s have the correct maxspeed of 60km/hr, however before the sign the limit is still 110km/hr, not 60km/hr. Additionally, the advisory maxspeed is the one specified on yellow warning signs, which in the northbound direction (as per the street imagery below) is 85km/hr, not 60km/hr, unless there have been recent changes?

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

northbound: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=PIvkA7eb4zncHUa_rrF7Rg&focus=photo

southbound: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=P8CkKeXG7nlA_DrnLAuY6Q&focus=photo

Quite possibly yes, it may have been silently removed in the background

Hi there, the area appears to cover only the building and not any associated land? Therefore I believe building=retail would be more appropriate?

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

That new multipolygon looks good to me; you correctly removed area=yes from the original multipolygon as well--its implied since its a member of the relation with the inner role

Hi there, have the hours for using these lanes changed?

"disused=highway=trunk" should read "disused:highway=trunk"

No worries, its one of those rules that sometimes you get used to -- highways only need separate ways when there is some form of *physical separation* e.g. concrete median rather than a lane line. Cheers

G'day Vincent de Souza, and welcome to OSM,

In relation to the cycleway you've added, my understanding is that unless there is a physical separation between the road and the cycleway, however in this case there is just a lane line. Additionally, Grand Drive has been tagged with cycleway:left=lane rendering the cycleway superfluous.

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot