Hi, what source is the speed limit and lanes from that is odbl compliant?

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

I've reverted this in osm.org/changeset/93261215

As aharvey has said if there's a reason that has been overlooked for its removal or adjustment then it can be changed again if necessary.

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

Hi, should the label not be part of the administrative relation? From what I can see it had the role of label.

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

Hi, similar with changeset 90688012 I've added back the highway tag (in 93148594) which defines the way as a road otherwise it is not routable for any vehicle. I can't see anything that would stop a bus from routing over these roads, apart from one of the segments having a maxweight of 16t. Perhaps this is what the router is balking at?

Cheers,
ortho_is_hot

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