Please see osm.wiki/Names . The building level that the cafe is on should not be included in the name tag. This information can be captured in the `level` tag

Hey mate,
Careful with the names of buildings here. The building name tags should include the words only and should not include the building number even if that is displayed on the building itself. The building number can be added as a `ref` tag or alt_name tag as you have done

No worries. Feel free to jump in the discord or forum and get a few more people’s thoughts if you feel strongly the other way. I don’t think there were many responses when I first asked

I spoke with the other Aussie mappers in the Oceania discord channel and the consensus was that since the tunnel and tracks have actually finished being built, and have testing trains running through them, the construction status should be removed. The existence of passenger services is captured by public transport route relations and not by the construction status of the tracks themselves.
The individual stations have their own construction statuses which also help reflect the non-existence of passenger services at the moment

Reverted due to nearmap use.
See changeset/154585691

Reverted due to use of nearmap.

See changeset/154585545.

Hi there, I know it's been a while but just letting you know that the 'service' tag is often unsuitable for service roads like the ones tagged in this changeset. It's a bit confusing given the name, but what we commonly call service roads are better known as "access roads" since they provide access to properties off the main carriageway. The access road should be tagged according to its function, which in this case is still 'primary' since the access road still carries high volumes of through traffic and doesn't carry significantly less traffic than the inner carriageways.

Reverted. Nearmap license is incompatible with OSM.
Revert changeset is 154541601

My bad! Thanks for the heads up

Which roads in particular were you looking at? I believe that all standard footpaths I've tagged with bicycle=yes and designation=shared_path are directly connected to a shared path without being interrupted by a road. The bicycle=yes tags all end once they reach a road (which is when the shared path ends under the Vic road rules).
This issue was discussed briefly in the Oceania Discord and I made sure that all footpaths I tagged like this have both the footway=sidewalk and designation=shared_path tags so they could be found and updated if we decided bicycle=yes wasn't the best way to tag them. Perhaps we should bring it up again, and in the mailing list too. Melbourne seems to be littered with improper signage on its shared paths

Hi there,
Please refrain from adding descriptions of objects to its 'name' tag, as is done on the elevators and ventilation shafts.
These objects do not require a name, and the description is best suited to the 'description' tag.
See osm.wiki/Names

Thanks

G'day,
What was the source for this edit? I've been past this path recently and there was no shared path here. I do know that a few years ago there were shared path markings but they were removed a while ago.

Cheers

Hey mate, nice work being so quick to add the new sharrows here. I just wanted to let you know that the correct tag for bike sharrows like this is `cycleway=shared_lane`. I've just updated it so don't worry about changing anything. There's a good list of the tags that have been used for bike lanes around Melbourne on the wiki here: osm.wiki/Melbourne_Bike_Lane_Project
Cheers

see changeset/148232690

See changeset/148233317

The changes made to the St Kilda Junction intersection appear to be based off old imagery. The intersection has been updated with protected bike lanes since the last Bing imagery release. I will revert the changes affecting the new parts of the intersection.
Cheers

Hi there,
Be careful with the surface colour tags. It should by `surface:colour`=* instead of `surface_colour`=*.
I can go through and update them now.
Cheers

Hi there,
Welcome to OSM. This is great data and should very useful, however, I'm interested in the source used. Your changeset indicates Bing but it looks more like something coming from another dataset. If this is the case please respond so others can verify the source and data if needed.
Also, one more thing. I believe that for bike paths the width can be tagged simply with `width=3` rather than `cycleway:both:width=3`. (The latter actually implied that each side is 3m giving a total of 6m wide rather than the entire path being 3m wide.)
Thanks

G'day,
Welcome to OSM. Just a quick note about the bike box mapping. Bike boxes are usually mapped as a single node on the stop line for the bikes, rather than as a way along the length of the bike box, even though this seems like a better/more accurate way to map (maybe you could start a proposal to include ways in the cycleway=asl tag). For now though it's best to add the cycleway=asl tag to nodes as this is what data consumers would be looking for.

That would be the case on the standard OSM map but not for specialised bike lane renderers such as Cyclosm which displays both separately mapped cycleways and on road bike lanes. Removing that detail just so it appears continuous on the map goes against tagging for the renderer guidelines. Important information is lost.