The applicable CC-BY-4.0 waiver for Geoscience Australia (the dataset I referred to) is osm.wiki/w/images/c/c7/GeoscienceAustralia_CCBY_Waiver_EmailAcceptance.pdf

The LWG decision doesn't differentiate "simple facts" from any other type of fact, therefore I believe it should apply here too.

To run through the components of the changeset:

Geometry changes were traced from satellite imagery (ESRI).

Naming of power lines, substations, voltages, etc is factual information. One can obtain the same non-creative names for power routes by tracing a power line from satellite imagery between two named substations and putting a hyphen in between. Most if not all substations were already present in OSM and already named, with no change needed. Voltages are confirmed by looking at satellite imagery of substations to find the bus connections and transformers at a substation to confirm which power lines in/out of the substation are at the same voltage. This is exactly what OSM mappers (including myself) do in countries where there are no public datasets available. Even in countries such as Australia with public datasets, it's still common to find inaccuracies and missing information that can only be deduced and confirmed from satellite imagery or process of elimination. For example, two portals observed in satellite imagery indicating two circuits connected to a bus (6 cables) but public dataset still only indicates a single circuit (3 cables) connected. The satellite imagery will be preferred for accuracy unless there is some other reliable data source confirming more recent removal of the power line in question.

If it helps, Geoscience Australia publish almost the same information as this dataset at https://digital.atlas.gov.au/datasets/digitalatlas::power-lines/about and claim the dataset is CC-BY-4.0 (what part is original expression and copyrightable I'm not sure...), and they go as far as explaining they applied, seemingly, the same process I did, using ESRI satellite imagery and latest public datasets (facts) to compile their own dataset.

ElectraNet also supply the same facts from their online website (ArcGIS Feature Server map) in spreadsheet format at https://electranet.com.au/resources/transmission-annual-planning-report-2/ These are the same facts with a different method of presentation from the ElectraNet website's map page and from the Geocsience Australia dataset.

If you still have concerns, are you familiar with the process to seek another opinion of the LWG, to make it clearer beyond the context of opening hours what other facts could be imported from public datasets, websites, etc.

What do you propose is copyrightable about this changeset?

See https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group/Minutes/2023-08-14#Ticket#2023081110000064_%E2%80%94_First_party_websites_as_sources

Which fields are of concern and what volume is of concern?

I'm aware of Australian weather radar information being located currently in OSM (before any changes I have made), the BOM website, WMO Weather Radar Database, and ACMA RRL database. For many fields, the same information exists in multiple sources. For example, the WMO Weather Radar Database and ACMA RRL databases both share information about the frequency, power output, elevation and antenna. All four sources share some rough (not always the same) coordinates, which are not kept anyway. They also all provide a name which generally differs between source. If anything, the ability to retrieve/consolidate fields from multiple sources indicates to me a better approach may be to keep such information in Wikidata (most radars I think have a Wikidata item someplace) and remove the detailed fields from OSM to avoid duplication. Wikidata has the benefit of allowing 4 names to be listed (and one chosen as preferred), with all 4 names referenced to one of the 4 different sources.

Other fields are mostly just standard OSM fields that would get added to any weather radar such as `monitoring:weather=yes`.

To clarify--seemingly 95%+ of weather radars in Australia are already existing in OSM. It's mostly just a small number of extra tags such as the frequency of the radar which are absent.

Also--this is not a mass import. Just Australian sites being added one by one, being modified and checked by manual human review.

Tags/additions are based on BOM radar information pages _and_ WMO weather radar database data for approximate location, and traced satellite imagery for accurate location.

A small number of other fields (such as frequency and antenna configuration) are solely from the WMO weather radar database which is where BOM publish such data to, and seemingly not available anywhere else. This is factual data (essentially from a single primary source who could supply such data). Factual data cannot be copyrighted in Australia, and LWG have also generally decided in https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group/Minutes/2023-08-14#Ticket#2023081110000064_%E2%80%94_First_party_websites_as_sources that it is fine to import factual data such as opening hours into OSM due to its factual basis and inability to be copyrighted.

Thank you!

Thanks, looks reasonable. The point I added was sourced from a Geoscience Australia dataset on data.gov.au and this is not necessarily the most accurate data at times.

In that case I extended an existing line with "fixme" tags, or joined together multiple line segments where one had a "fixme" tag. I don't add voltages, operators, etc unless I can provide a source/reference for that information.

I completed and merged a large number of small ways (power line segments) into one single long, completed way. Therefore ways which have been merged into a larger way will be deleted by the software (JOSM in this case).

I just compared, and the current cliff lines in OpenStreetMap are very poor compared to the LPI Base Map. I'd say all the cliffs could be changed automatically--just delete the existing ones and replace with accurate LPI cliffs.

If I recall correctly, the tracks I added in this changeset were traced from satellite imagery. So you are right that some twists and turns were probably hidden under trees in the satellite data. Feel free to change that to LPI data. I would suggest however checking the changes against Digital Globe premium imagery too, just for extra validation that the LPI data is accurate.

My source was the NSW government map: http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/ which shows the falls as being further upstream. I haven't been there in person though as you have, and don't have GPS tracks, so cannot confirm the map is correct. Have you been along the section further upstream of Clover Falls (i.e. just below Macquarie Falls)? Are there any other significant drops in that section?

If you know the section upstream of Clover Falls doesn't have other drops, I suggest going ahead and removing my placement of Clover Falls, and replacing it with yours. One thing that would need to be checked though is the point on Macquarie Rivulet where the stream from McAndrew Falls joins in. http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/ indicates that it joins in somewhere just below Clover Falls. However based on your survey, it seems that the stream may actually join in above Clover Falls?