If it's part of the middle school campus of Cammeraygal High, it should be combined into a multipolygon.

In the iD editor, you can Shift + select both ways, then right click Merge.

hi way/1469131821/history was changed to amenity=school, without any details.

Were the tennis courts demolished? A new school built, or is this part of Cammeraygal High?

nice find. we can update the pipeline route. It also seems that the junction is at Tunks Park, so the section from Wollstonecraft to Brightmore Reserve likely routes via Tunks Park.

I've updated the name of node/46500819/history to reflect the current modern signage there.

I agree it would be nice to have them consistent, so it's a good idea to raise the topic within the community for discussion to try and determine a guideline that could go on osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines about how we have mapped them, and why.

The population is heavily tied to the geographic area and only makes sense when taken against an ABS geography, given the coverage area of the place=city for Sydney in OSM is still changing, for example your changes increased the city size, and I expect after further discussion we may revert it, I think it's best to leave off the population out.

Furthermore it's unlikely our place=city is going to line up with any of the ABS geographies, so any population value isn't going to be very accurate.

I deleted node/13133160267/history since the island/islet place is already mapped as an area at relation/16220992

Based on my own observations and note/4886298 it seems like there is nothing on the ground here indicating it's a shared path.

Nearby https://yoursay.northernbeaches.nsw.gov.au/frenchs-forest-active-transport-network was recently built, but they didn't build any R8-2 Shared Path (https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/operations/roads-and-waterways/traffic-signs/r8-2-shared-path) signs, or paint any bicycle/pedestrian symbols on the path, or even paint a dotted centerline, so while it's clear it was intended as a shared path, and funded by the NSW Government as one, it's confusing for users of the path if they are legally allowed to cycle there or not. What they did do is paint the bicycle logo on the segregated crossings, so there's that, but nothing for the path itself.

The TfNSW cycleway data should only be used to generate hints of where there could be things wrong in OSM, but we shouldn't be using it as a source of truth, because it's not always correct.

Changes to OSM should only happen by cross checking with other sources like street level imagery such as Mapillary, or aerial imagery such as the DCS NSW Imagery, and reviewing the history of the features being edited. If in doubt best to leave a map not to ask someone to check on the ground.

Otherwise it's an import, and it should go through the import proposal process.

osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Mountain_biking_and_BMX

Although we do list the informal mtb track there as bicycle=designated, I think we should probably change that, but keen to hear what others think.

I'm not sure. Usually I'd reserve bicycle=designated for paths explicitly/officially designated for bicycles via signage. Being an access tag, bicycle=designated implies the highest indication that bicycles are permitted and intended to use the trail.

These trails are on crown lands and seem to be informal as they are are not officially maintained or endorsed/approved.

Therefore I would use

1. highway=path + path=mtb (to indicate the path is constructed/built as a mountain bike track, noted by the curve banks, small jumps etc)
2. informal=yes the path is not formally endorsed, it's just informal.
3. bicycle=yes bicycles seem to be tolerated, there's no "no bicycles" signage, but at the same time they aren't explicitly indicated (compare this to the nearby Serrata and Gahnia tracks)

Thanks. 10 Olympia shows a fence in the backyard, and officially has two addresses 10 and 10A, but that could be outdated.

some mappers get upset using highway=cycleway for a MTB track, based on my proposal at osm.wiki/Proposal:Tag:path%3Dmtb my preference is to reserve highway=cycleway for urban bike trails (need not be paved, just can't have technical trail features only suited for mountain bikes and mountain biking) and use highway=path + path=mtb for dedicated MTB trails.

I've fixed this now, setting access=private and ownership=private. See osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don't_use_name_tag_to_describe_things

way/1483990883/history appears to be a duplex, not detached.

The address overlay shows way/1483952800/history as being 3 with 3A behind.

The lot overlay shows way/1483952801/history as being a duplex.

I don't want to change this if you're added this data from a ground survey, in case the references I'm using are wrong, but they seem to suggest the data is wrong here. What source did you use for those addresses and building types?

hi a building=* should cover the building area only, not the whole block of land.

furthermore it appears the entrance=* that you added doesn't correlated at all with the actual block entrance, you've just placed it in the midpoint regardless of the front gate. If this was don't for aesthetics then that's against good practice in OSM, see osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer.

Yep... looks like this changeset was incorrect to redraw the demolished buildings from outdated imagery. I've updated them now.

As of 2026-04-23 it did, I'm not sure if it's changed since then. They built way/1515000255 as a ramp to join the road.

way/1411049011 is actually the "path" in the sea cave, I've fixed the surface.

I mean just the north end of that relation.