You've asked for a lot of reviews. The one comment I'd make is that you need to improve your changeset comments. Have a look at this:
osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/58309363

You asked for a review so he we go:

1. You've put this in the wrong location. Their office is in George St Sydney. This is George St Liverpool.

2. You need to add a tag that explains what thing the node is trying to represent. Have a look at office=*

3. Things that you put in OSM need to be verifiable. See osm.wiki/Verifiability. I can find any evidence that Nicholas Pastras is considered an expert.

4. Unit and level levels need to be separate from street numbers. See addr=*
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/58358891

Two things:

1. I'm not sure you understand what bridges and culverts are. The road crossing can be either a bridge or a culvert but it can't be a bridge and a culvert at the same time. If you think that something is a culvert you need to remove the existing bridge and layer tags from the highways as well as adding tunnel and layer tags to the waterway. See bridge=*

2. Scrivener and Eucumbene have pipes that pass through the wall in addition to the spillway. These are what people are mapping. As far as I know Lake Tuggernong doesn't have one (and if it does it won't be in the same location as the spillway).

Hi,

This mostly looks OK but you have two overlapping buildings:

way/581234063
way/581234049

you should delete the second one.

Thanks for your contribution.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/58199574

Looks fine.

Thanks for your contribution.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/58219124

Actually you did alter this one:
http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=371494483

I'm assuming by accident.

Err? Is there any particular reason you think way/371494483 is not a beach?

Hi,

Highway-waterway crossing are either bridges or culverts but not both at the same time.

Thanks.

These edits also needs to comply with: osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct

Note that the first step should have been to discuss this on the talk-au mail list.

"Car Park of Shame" is a Canberra joke name applied to any unpaved parking areas.

"Car Park of Legends" is someone taking the piss.

Looks OK. I moved the suite number to addr:unit, added an office tag so that the node represents something and fixed the opening hours to be in the correct format.

PS: Tip of the hat for the neutral description tag. Most SEO descriptions are ridiculously spammy and usually need to be cut down to just the facts.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/57475794

Hi,

The default value for a highway is paved. Adding surface=paved is not adding any information to the map. The default value for track is unpaved. Adding surface tags is only useful where it's not the default value.

Thanks.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/57425538

Hi,

Went on a walk to Bullocks Hut today and was unable to find this path:
way/409053923
on the ground at either end (had a sign up about rehabilitation at the car park end).

Don't want to delete it myself as I don't know how clearly visible this path was (it might just be I couldn't see it).

Hi,

I thought the correct tagging for a road under construction was highway=construction construction=blah (construction=*)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/57258324

Hi,

Did you get permission to us DCDB in OSM?

If you did then please add an entry to:

osm.wiki/Contributors#Queensland_Government_data

with the correspondence and wavier form.

Otherwise please don't import this to OSM.

Thank you.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/57022345

This ramp was demolished more than two years ago.

Use your best judgment. Personally I think it's much more important to flag crossings that are fords as these are more likely to be problems for routing. Splitting between a culvert and a bridge doesn't really matter that much other than for map completeness.

As a general rule of thumb a bridge will have some sort of deck, whereas a culvert will usually have the road continue over it on an embankment. Bridges will tend to be larger than culverts. GA has some examples of bridges in their guide: http://www.ga.gov.au/mapspecs/topographic/v6/appendixU_files/appendix_u_trans.html

My comment was really preempting other mappers that like to argue the toss about whether a particular structure is a bridge or a culvert.

Cleaned it up a little bit:

1. From aerial imagery this looks like a bridge so changed tagging to bridge. For a culvert you split the water way and tag the bit passing under the road as tunnel=culvert + layer=-1

2. Added surface tags to roads.

3. Fixed wrong name on Califat Trail.

4. Downgraded Trail to track as appears to be possibly on someone's land (there's fences, gates, and has that farm track look) and it far less clear on the imagery than the road

5. Fixed up the alignment to the NSW LPI Imagery which is normally clearer and more accurate than Bing (but not always).

Note that the only definitive way to tell if this is a culvert or a bridge would be to go to the site and see if the stream bed underneath was running on natural surface or if there was something like a concrete surface.

PT assistant adds some validation rules to JOSM, it just speeds up the trial and error process. You still need to know what you are doing.

Had a look at the other relation. It is a bit of a mess. Looks like someone tried to convert to PTv2 without knowing what that is.

Install PT assistant:

osm.wiki/JOSM/Plugins/PT_Assistant

Then you can do less finger crossing.