G'day OVDAUS, and welcome to OSM

I've reverted this change (in #92142872) since outlines that are created without any imagery aren't verifiable or correct in shape, and tend to be mapping for the renderer.

If you want to state that there is a building there then the best method would to place a single node and added the building=house tag on the node, rather than use a generalised outline.

If you have any questions then please ask.

Regards,
ortho_is_hot

Hi, what does "fix up these edits mean"? What is particularly wrong with them. If you need to correct the geometry of features, then switch to Maxar Premium Imagery (Beta) which is relatively up to date in this area (you may need to realign it in iD).

Also is the new geometry you created an estimation or is it based on gpx or something else? Since there isn't a source in your changeset

They must've installed all the traffic signals after mid-august since there wasn't any sign of traffic signals when I last visited. Also we shouldn't be using government sources (mainly due to licensing issues) and since the A9 seems like its always changing in which case on the ground surveys are best.

I'm going to make a few edits to this intersection mainly due to both a few council boundaries being broken (since some road segments contain those boundary relation memberships), and to bring back some of the old ways that were deleted since preserving the history is good OSM practice (osm.wiki/Keep_the_history) e.g. change a road under construction to completed instead of deleting the old way and realigning the existing way

Has all of this construction been completed and open to traffic?

Hi, I've reverted this in osm.org/changeset/91932503 for the above reasons. In terms of odbl compliant sources, you can use both mapillary and openstreetcam which both have coverage in this area.

Regards,
ortho_is_hot

Based on a survey today, I've added the path back in osm.org/changeset/91760161 I've connected it to the parking lot so it's more obvious that it doesn't connect to Dickson Lane

G'day and welcome to OSM,

The parking lots that you modified need to form the outline of all the parking spaces, instead of being a small area (e.g. how they were mapped in the first version here: https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/643551809). I've updated these in osm.org/changeset/91475264

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

Hi, has https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/760568762 been demolished?

Your vandalism has been reverted: osm.org/changeset/91270309

Regards,
ortho_is_hot

My best guess is that you wanted to apply the preset to something else but mis-clicked the multipolygon

I've added the other one here: osm.org/changeset/91254020

It essentially does the same thing -- the shoulder changes path to guide you into the separated cycleway (with a bicycles must exit), and straight after the tunnel portal is fully underground, it reconnects with the M1 shoulder (with a watch for bicycles sign installed within the past couple of months).

Thanks, from what I can see it's meant to be a separated version of the cross here with care, and that it makes its way somewhat sharply from the east side of the building to the west side of the tunnel exit. Good luck cycling on the freeway though, I couldn't do it myself in a million years. As for the other side, I've got some dashcam footage going away which I can check up on and add tomorrow.

I've added highway=service back in 91215878

Hi, it seem's you've flooded Mooney Mooney—I've changed the multipolygon back to a forest instead of a reservoir in 91215444

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

Hi, highway=service is necessary on parking aisles as highway=* specifies that they are a road, without it it's just a line that is not routable.

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

Hi, is 'designated' meant to be 'destination'?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/91117224

G'day and welcome to OSM,

Since this is an important feature, I've reverted this in osm.org/changeset/91119114

Discussion over the issue of tagging the harbour bridge did occur on this changeset osm.org/changeset/87315727 and it seems to me like a reasonable conclusion. If you think it still should be changed, I would recommend some form of community discussion, since this issue isn't as clear cut as it may seem.

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

Hi, on what basis is this bicycle=yes? Looks to me to only be wide enough for a person, and I haven't seen any signage to show that bicycles are allowed last time I visited.

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

Hi there, for osm.org/way/40256491 I'd suggest probably doing it as an additional tag for maxsped:conditonal=40 @ hgv

(got hgv from osm.wiki/Key:access#Transport_mode_restrictions)