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.

Hi there,
May I ask why you changed the small length of Linlithgow avenue to an unclassified road and also removed the section with an on road bike lane. The information that the bike lane here isn't protected is important to cyclists and routers.
Please also use more descriptive changeset comments.
Thanks

Do you mind linking me to that discussion? To me it seems like adding a building tag to all bleachers is tagging for the renderer. I'd consider these bleachers no more of a building than the grass hill used for seating behind them since they're essentially just concreted ground.

Hey mate, just wanted to clarify the tagging of the bleachers as buildings. The bleachers themselves have no walls or ceilings which are usually needed for a building=* tag to be warranted. These bleachers exist as a ground feature only.

Reverted this changeset since the building shown on the imagery has been demolished and replaced by the one previously mapped. See changeset/140040012. Esri shows the new building

G'day. It seems you deleted the separate way for the protected bike lane. Most other separated bike lanes are mapped as separate ways and the cycleway=track tag is generally only used for speedy mapping. The general consensus is that anything with a physical barrier such as this should be mapped as a separate way. Just wanted to let you know especially since the rest of the area including St Kilda Road have separated bike lanes as separate ways

Just went and surveyed and no specific bike signage is there so I'll add the dismount tags for now. Feel free to change back if you disagree though.

Should the footpaths at the dandenong road crossing be tagged as bicycle=dismount? I was here not long ago and I couldn't see anything indicating bicycle access meaning that any cyclists would have to dismount when they cross from the road. The tag would improve bicycle routing

G'day,
May I ask why exactly you have split this road? It risks breaking any routes that run through the roads and could be harmful. It seems unnecessary since no tags were changes either

Should bike lane continue on Murrumbeena road on the left side just after Dalny Road? Bing imagery and Mapillary show the bike lane continues through the intersection since it's marked by the broken line.

I passed through this road today and couldn't see any indication that bikes could ride down the other side of it. The opposite side of Dandenong Road definitely has an opposing bike lane but there wasn't one on this side. I might have missed a sign but was there any physical indicator when you mapped this?

Cheers, should be fixed now. I don't think there's a need for the "parking" or "parking:side" prefix at all since they're all areas separate from the road