Hi ArchangelEkim, thanks very much for catching and fixing this.

Yes, perhaps doesn't belong in OSM. Considering it has a full Wikipedia page (and is present tense) I thought perhaps it's been overlooked. If nobody else has heard of it happy to remove - will delete the node.

Thanks for this!

> we should probably just import the rest of them

That sounds good to me - I'm not quite comfortable running a JSOM batch import at this stage though.

Just to check - does adding in a couple of start_date's manually make the import harder? (I don't plan to import many more/if any manually)

Hi, thanks for that additional context - I will add these back. My mistake.
Thanks.

Hello, it was not a mistake to include it (I verified the cafe does still exists at that address), but I should have pushed the changeset before including it.
I did miss that the website is not live any more and see that’s already been corrected.
Thanks for checking.

Hi Mario, could I check how you determined the surfaces of these paths?
For example way/557211936 is tagged with a concrete surface (which I've now updated) but I'm fairly sure the tagging of concrete is incorrect.

Apologies, thanks for correcting!

Apologies - will make sure to keen changesets more confined in future!

This changeset is made up of some changes in Oslo, as well as a few small edits near Sørum.

Hi AntBurnett - if you're local to the area would you be able to resurvey this way and the adjacent one? way/61437113

I'm unsure if it's still a legal shared path. If you could also add a width tag on each section I'd really appreciate it. Thanks!

Hi Tanoh, could I check if the orange barriers blocking the cycleway have been removed? If not then I think the cycleway should be considered as still under construction (ie. unsafe to be used by cyclists) and this should be reverted.

I’m not familiar with the area, and I can’t tell from the imagery (I wasn’t confident to remove the way without local knowledge). Should we add a fixme tag for someone to check on the ground?

Also mentioned in https://dictionaryofsydney.org/place/st_pauls_square (2021), added as alt_name

Hi Samuel, regarding this info on the source:bicycle tag of one of the ways:

> if they're City of Sydney Parks, all City of Sydney parks are bicycle=yes unless otherwise noted by the council in signage.

Do you know if this is still current, and if you have a source for it? Thanks.

I would like this to be a legal bicycle path, but I'm not sure what "NSW definition of what a SUP is" means?

I thought legal shared paths need to either have a blue line or signs at each end.

Thanks for this. Did you notice if the main east/west path is open or closed?

This BicycleNSW post appears to show the east/west route open - my previous edit (with access=no) may be incorrect now.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/bicycle-nsw_innerwestbicyclecoalition-bikeleichhardt-activity-7152547100201811970-ID7q

Forgot to add more detailed changes description: Survey gate numbers and offical “colours” of gates (reflected in gate text colour). Adds Italian and English descriptions of gates where missing.

(I'm unsure of the legality further west, this would be great to investigate further)

Hmm that may be true, but the description field (summary) is quite literal: "Indication how long to wait before getting green".

I'll look at making a proposal on the Wiki to get some wider feedback - it will be my first time making a proposal.

Imagery: https://map.openaerialmap.org/#/151.20587199926376,-33.90801303932399,18/user/62e7e060d84998000537975e/62e7e606d849980005379761