Hi Warin61,

So again I confess my noobishness :-)
On this, I would say that bicycle=dismount applies to more than 99.9% of traffic light crossings and footpaths in NSW.
Basically it's the legal default in NSW - unless cycling is explicitly permitted by signage in these places (e.g. by shared path markings, or bicycle signs at traffic light crossings), then for adults it's not allowed - so it's ubiquitous.
So, personally, I don't think bicycle=dismount should be used for that purpose, because it would have to be used everywhere (or at least, everywhere that connects directly to cycling-permitted-areas).
Personally, I think bicycle=dismount should be used to mark areas where there are signs explicitly saying "no cycling", or "dismount bicycles", especially where there are cycling paths before and after that area.
That happens in multiple places (e.g. Henry Deane Plaza near Central railway station, ramp at the north of The Goods Line near Powerhouse Museum, on the waterfront in front of the Maritime Museum, in middle of the George Street cycleway when it passes through public housing, and so forth). I think those areas with signs, and cycle areas before & after, are very much worth tagging with bicycle=dismount, because that indicates something that has been explicitly disallowed, when the layout would lead you to assume it would likely be permitted.
But, when it follows logically from the road rules, rather from signage, such as in this case, then it seems to me that it probably shouldn't be tagged, because it's clear from the road rules themselves, rather than being explicitly requested by signage.
To this end, I mark crossings as "Cycle & Foot crossing" with type=traffic_signals when they have bike signs, and use "Crossing with Pedestrian signals" with type=traffic_signals when it's normal traffic lights what don't include bike signs. In neither case do I try and edit the bicycle attribute.
That's my $0.02 on it - but I could be wrong.

-- All the best,
Nick.

Hi Warin61,

My apologies for stuffing this up and violating this rule. I am very much a beginner at openstreetmap, I don't pretend to even know a small fraction of the rules or tags or attributes, including this one prior to today, and I will endeavour to not make this mistake again.

In plain language, here is the situation, to the best of my knowledge: they appear to be different buildings (they are built with different coloured brick, and different windows, for example), from around the same era, that all have been merged into one business (there's a back bit of the southern building which I assume is just bathrooms or store rooms, but otherwise it appears to be all a semi-open-plan part of the same business). The business is a pub, that sat derelict for decades and which was sold and renovated and reopened a few years back, called "The Terminus". The buildings are substantially joined now, in that you can walk internally from one to the other, on both levels.

So I have made the following edits:
* I will return it to 2 separate buildings.
* I will add a marker amenity point, to say that it's a pub, on the main building, which is the one on the corner.
* These were done in changeset/125924258

Hope that's okay, and resolves my stuff up. If it does not, please let me know. And thank you very much for your guidance to help me improve.

-- All the best,
Nick.

P.s. I don't yet know how to switch to DCS imagery, but I will try to work that out shortly :-)