This changeset has been fully reverted in changeset 87396727 for roadways then changeset 87653265 for other highways.

Hi,

The roadways are not considered "shared paths" under osm tagging (cycleway) or under NSW road law; thus they are service roads which have cycle lanes along them (which is tagged in the cycleway=* key).

As for the other paths, they may be used by cyclists, but unless there is signage or any legal instrument to say that they can be used by cyclists, the assumption under NSW law is that they are not for cyclists and thus not appropriate to be tagged as shared paths. If the paths do have a legal instrument corresponding to them then they are fine as you have changed them but if not they will have to be reverted.

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

The one "car free zone" (due to covid) that does exist in centennial park wasn't actually adjusted in this changeset, but I will go double-check in person today. However I have seen vehicles use these roads that were changed recently. And unfortunately the cycleways in the area aren't set up *quite* yet, they will be within a few days

G'day HighRouleur,

I've reverted part of your changes (changeset 87396727) as you changed roads for vehicles to shared paths, which are only for pedestrians and cyclists with no motor vehicle access. Additionally, you changed several other footways and tracks to add bicycle permissions; is this the case on the ground?

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

The changes were done my a new mapper who changed a bunch of tracks etc into shared paths, but these roads are currently and have been for any reasonable time, roads for vehicles. I'm just about to contact them, but possibly they misunderstood the preset in iD.

I wouldn't say they need to be 100% accurate, but a couple of metres variation seems reasonable. However an issue will arise if you use google earth as *source data*, rather than your method. However going out and measuring or making informed estimates I would say is generally good.

G'day scrytch, just curious where the source for the building height is as there is none listed in the changeset. Cheers, ortho_is_hot

G'day redsphere, and welcome to OpenStreetMap,

In regards to building outlines, the iD editor has the orthogonalise tool (shortcut key is q) which allows you to ensure that all corners of a building are 90 degrees which is generally the case.

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

However we have not received a waiver from wikipedia regarding the attribution requirement. CC0 licensed wikidata, however, can be used.

(Replying as a review was requested)

Hi, I've gone ahead and added the appropriate tagging for 24/7 opening hours and designated it as a gym.

G'day ctrl_data and thanks for your contributions,

In regards to the educational facilities you have added, my suggestion is to have the amenity=* take up the entire lot that the facility is situated on and then add an additional building=* to create the building outline. Also you may just want to add a building tag to the existing area.

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

Great, thanks

Also note that its "lanes" and not "lines"
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/86725282

Somewhere along the line a building tag was added to the station which I think should be removed (it's a cutting in the ground)

I went ahead and updated the instructions on the maproulette task as it implied that :forward and :backward is necessary on every road. Personally I do specify the number of lanes in each direction on even-laned roads when they have more than 2 lanes although I agree with your point.

Maybe a generic cycleway=no would be appropriate?

My apologies, I only just noticed that you did that in a later changeset. Thanks for the contribution, regards ortho_is_hot

Hi Darryn and welcome to OpenStreetMap,

I'm personally not from the area, but if the cycleways that you added also allow pedestrians, then you can select the "Shared Path" preset in iD that will add correct access restrictions and allow routing across the paths for pedestrians. If not then they're fine as they are.

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

Hi, just wondering why you deleted the station outline? To me it seems like a much more accurate than a single node to describe the facility?

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

And by all means if you want to leave another mapper to do it (since you were just adding bridges) then you are more than welcome to do so