Yea. I figured that was the case. I'm going to check out the signage from Havilah this weekend, to see if I can find a route from there. It didn't seem to be the right thing to add this to a Chats -> Crag relation, but that might be the least worst thing ultimately. Give me a couple of days.

the edit precedes any standardisation. it's fine to change. thanks for checking.

Hey Andrew. Surely an admirable goal, and one that is quite easily applied to most streets (and you will see in this changeset, that all of Johnson Street is so mapped). However, through Albert St, we have overlapping left and right turn lanes that in my view if mapped strictly along the centre line may not reflect the straight nature of through traffic. Still, in response to your comment I have remapped these sections, and while not strictly on the centre line, hopefully are a better compromise between this and the actual topology.

Hey Andrew. Yep. You're going to have to dig a bit deeper into the history to find who actually added this tag - if you wish to. I'm just nudging, dividing and tweaking in this instance.

yep. done.

Can you please give a source for "P-L" Cycleway as a regional route. The relation was created without a source. Was it local survey? What does the P-L stand for? Is it an abbreviation for something?

Hi. I don't think I added the name to way.. I think it was inherited. Bear in mind this was many years ago now..

In any event, I agree the name is probably best on the route relation, and not on the ways.

Over time, the Parramatta to Liverpool Railtrail name has faded. I'm not sure what the correct name of the relation should be, and I'd be inclined to leave it like it is.

I've undone this change.

Two reasons.

1. When in doubt, we should go with what's on the ground. In addition to the dismount signs, this is not a practical or safe cycling location.

2. It is likely illegal to cycle here. Under the railways act - and this is railway property - make it illegal to cycle through any subway. 5 penalty units, so a fine of $550.

I'd suggest if you want to make this designated cycleway - you seek out clarification for this, rather than doing the amateur lawyering thing on OSM, and putting people who follow our map at risk.

I agree. I'll fix it tonight, if you don't get to it first.

Of course, thanks for checking!

Good afternoon. Thank you for your comments. My edit was intended and correct. The user who added these "round-the-block" designated cycleways has a particular view that once a cycleway sign is encountered, that that cycleway continues around blocks until a cycleway sign is encountered. I have actually spent many hours surveying these streets to very this is not the case, and in some cases there is no space to even walk to the side of the road. I have emailed the user separately, and he has acknowledged this. I will try and re-survey the area and add correct data as soon as I can.

Can you please explain the basis for the naming of this cycleway "LAJ1 Rhodes to Homebush Bay" . I haven't been able to verify this naming.

I'm really not sure what you're asking me. I've described the footway that has steps as part of it, and I think the current tagging is fine. If you're on a mission to search in overpass, and get rid of all steps=yes tags across the planet, then that's fine too.

Hi. It means the normal thing. Its a pedestrian footway linking two roads, with steps making it unsuitable for cycling (without dismounting - of course).

ta

This changeset created Wills Reserve, near Crookwell. From imagery, there doesn't appear to be any conservation reserve there, the boundary crosses roads, farmland, and residences, with no indication the land is special in any way. Is there a source?

I'm really sceptical that GNB are changing towns to localities in their database - especially for places like Crookwell. Perhaps we need to understand the changes actually being made to reflect these in OSM.

I notice this changeset changed Crookwell from a GNB town to a GNB locality. This isn't the case - Crookwell is still a GNB town. There is also a locality Crookwell. Was this a scripted change?

It's looking much better now. Thanks for your effort.

This relation is very ugly, and very inaccurate, cutting across all kinds of actual features.

Can you expand on why it is actually required?