Thanks for the clarification, Fizzie41, I've dropped the "bridge" properties from the path alongside the promenade and pier.

Hi all, I have moved the definition of the Charles Darwin Walk onto this relation containing all segments to have a single source of definition. I'm assuming this is the cleanest way to do it but would like to confirm.

With this change in place I would also suggest to delete the other way that runs on top of it (Grand Cliff Top Walk has a separate set of ways) and replace it with a relation that refers to the ways the Charles Darwin Walk uses as well so that the physical path segments have a single representation. Thoughts?

Right, I had just figured that out in JOSM (OverPass API query panel) to get data at given timestamps. That seems to be a fairly reasonable way to do diffs and narrow-down results to find culprits! Thanks.

Good catch, this was indeed an accidental deletion.

What's a good way to track down past changes, especially discovering an object that has by now been deleted (and from there the changeset)? I can't find a way to do and visualize time- and/or changeset-diffs (JOSM).

Hi seth_ze,

there is a note inquiring about the purpose of this marina node that you set and I thought I'd point you toward it to see if you might be able to shed some light on it: note/4105348

Thanks!

Hi GeeMaps!,

The change was made by Fizzie41 if I look at the history but I can't see your username in the history of these ways, what am I missing?

Ah yes, that makes sense if you worked off of that information, I was presuming that to be the cause. Technically not wrong but the entire pier is suspended above the water and sitting on stilts as well as the larger part of the promenade in front of (and probably including) the terrace houses; most of that is artificially "reclaimed" land. The pier and the open space between pier and terraces are wooden boards, the promenade in front of the terraces solid concrete. I'd suggest the latter to be treated as regular ground level (even though reclaimed and technically suspended and the pier marked as a pier or board walk of some kind, if that's really necessary but the ways themselves should just be regular ways on top of the underlying structure as the structures don't directly define & delimit them. Benefits would be more clarity (it's a bit confusing & misleading as a set of bridges) and easier to read. Thoughts?

"and South", sorry

To clarify, this sign is actually located *underneath* the elevated Syd Einfeld Drive on the ground level, to the side of Grosvenor street. The unresolved note/4131778 made this appear like a mapping issue.

No worries! I have surveyed and redone the changes alongside another new restaurant in the corner (changeset/148942273).

The source was mislabeled - Google Maps had not been used to ascertain any information that produced this changeset.

The source was mislabeled - Google Maps had not been used to ascertain any information that produced this changeset.

Thanks for the catch; will see if this can be confirmed through local knowledge/survey by someone instead.

I see, I had that same thought and wondered how far that definition might extend soon after; thanks for the catch.

Apparently some extra "tt"s for good measure as well.

Hi @Fizzie41,

out of interest, what was your reasoning behind marking these paths as bridges instead of keeping them grounded footways?

For reference: This is the map note that this change addresses and that I am referring to above: note/3980711

Yeah, slightly wrong assumption of how changesets work; I presumed they're open for review & discussion while open, then commit to the public once closed.

I didn't really intend to go into 3D mapping for this change but mainly meant to address a map note regarding this building that was left by a user. Changeset is closed and 2D tiles are updated but it doesn't seem like they draw the various structures that sit on top of the ground structure that I've added, just the ground structure.

I would argue it's still an improvement as it resolves the ambiguity that the "park" (actually: residential rooftop garden on top of a 3rd level roof) brought along by clarifying that it's not a public park on ground level that one can walk through but instead one large building filling the entire block.

Thanks for the pointers! I've added tags to the parts of the building as well as an outline as specified on the page you reference but have left the changeset open to confirm it looks good before committing (148761003).

I'm not sure if a changeset that hasn't been closed does render here to confirm but I guess it won't. I'll wait for some feedback, then close it.

I've added the foundation structure that the existing buildings are sitting on but this results in buildings nested within the new building. What's the best or prescribed way of organizing this kind of scenario?

Oh awesome, that makes a lot of sense. I hadn't noticed the diff in the name; thanks for updating and clarifying it all in advance!