G'day GIS MCC,

With footpaths, generally its best to connect them to the road when there is a crossing as it allows for routing across different places as routers can't understand disconnected ways. Also along Cessnock Road my understanding is that there is a shared path which is currently already mapped as far as Mount Dee Road, but you've extended the footway past the existing way and up to the river?

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

Hi there, given the number of versions of this way: osm.org/way/23098197/history (35 versions), I've restored it as part of the history, reusing it as a different part of the road (did this in changeset 92757507).

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

G'day,

I would suggest (imo) that modelling each turning direction at the intersection just ends up with superfluous geometry and makes it more difficult for renderers and routers. In my opinion the standard method of intersection modelling is sufficient? Interested to hear your thoughts.

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

G'day, and welcome to OSM,

I've gone ahead and reverted this change (osm.org/changeset/92628832) since it looks like you've accidentally moved the node that was connected to the road.

If you have any questions about OSM then please browse the wiki or feel free to drop questions below.

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

This changeset has been reverted (osm.org/changeset/92627900) for spam.

Regards,
ortho_is_hot

Hi there,

I've gone and removed the crossings (in 92495908) at the Pacific Highway footway and the motorway as since the footway is a bridge it doesn't form a "crossing" with the motorway, it just goes above.

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

Given that the new area encompasses the yard which is the main section and probably more appropriate to have the landuse=railway. And fair there's a big gap so given that I'll stop being annoying :) nice work

Hi there, is the landuse=railway incorrect here? https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/441576886

Even if there is a landuse=industrial area on the eastern side of the tracks I would argue the railway area should still encompass the other side of the tracks?

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

If you want to visualise the change then I would suggest using OSMcha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/92282522/

It's fine if it was manually reviewed but the question is that there was the removal of landuse=industrial from 34 different plants across the east coast, and and I wondering if this was discussed, since it appears to be a commonly used tag combination.

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

If you've only used living_street on designated shared zones then it looks good to me.

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

Nice, looks good

Hi, was this mass edit discussed anywhere?

No worries just wanted to confirm, updated imagery will be very useful

I'm happy to be corrected but iirc the gaps in the cycleway have a no bicycles sign (https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/Bxx3KlNCnPhQox2pDQA59Q). Although I wouldn't be surprised if that was just during construction to improve safety for workers. If there is no explicit signage in the other direction then the tagging looks good.

HI there, is osm.org/node/1334513374 an intentional movement? Bus stops are generally on the side of the road. Also I would suggest to make editing easier that you use the "LPI NSW Imagery" which is much clearer than Bing imagery.

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

Hi there, both the crossings added in this changeset as well as in osm.org/changeset/92223206 are both not actually intersections, since the light rail line runs underground; my understanding is that in this case they shouldn't be tagged this way?

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

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