For the building change at St Scholasticas, I know that its' certainly 3 levels at the front of the old building. Is the rest 2? It might need splitting.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/88212901

Can we really use maxspeed:type=AU:urban given different states have different values? Or do we assume routers will additionally look up which state a road is in? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_Australia#Default_speed_limits_by_state_and_territory
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/88007583

Looks good. You could always add the address if you know it: addr=*
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/88029028

As you point out the data is clearly wrong and/or out of date. The link you sent uses the LPI NSW Base map at lower zoom levels, but falls back to the ArcGIS World Topographic Base Map when you zoom in, which is where you see the A4 shields. The ArGIS base map is very ordinary for Australia so shouldn't be trusted (and I'm sure has copyright issues if we do reference/copy).

I think the OSM maps are in a sensible state now - largely consistent with the road/lane markings. It is also logical from a "route" perspective, in that the A4 starts at the point immediately south of the on/off ramps, which coincides with where "name=Western Distributor" starts. Maybe the govt has a better consistent source somewhere, but OSM is meant to map what's on the ground, not what the Govt thinks is right. That's my 2c anyway.

This crossing was previously set to bicycle=dismount in line with the signs in the area from Westconnex which are in line with with https://www.westconnex.com.au/media/ketdddwh/rozelle-interchange-rozelle-lilyfield-and-annandale-construction-update-july-2020.pdf

I'm not sure this is correct. These node changes aren't on the actual crossing with the road, and even if they were they are the wrong type. They should be highway=traffic_signal, not marked. The correct "crossing" nodes appear to be correctly labelled already.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/87949945

Of course, I mean to say "Removed ref=M1 tags from some lanes which are _NOT_ M1"

I have removed some more ref=M1 from some other lanes in changeset/87945182. I did notice on my morning drive that the Cahill Expressway exit is indeed marked as M1 when after coming off the bridge. I would have thought the sign should read "To M1". I'm really not sure if we should be tagging the eastbound part of Cahill past circular quay as M1.

This is based off overhead direction signs and signs painted on the road.

The comment is incorrect. The partial revert is for changeset/87762008.

Hi Peter, It looks like you accidentally moved part of Victoria St up to Rushcutters Bay Park. It's an easy mistake to make when scrolling in the ID editor, as left click is used for both moving nodes and scrolling. I've put that back in the right spot in changeset/87767663.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/87762008

Something isn't right here. I am unable to open this changeset in JOSM or ID.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/87370344

In addition to this, there is also an A4 route relation (see 3161722) which needs to be fixed, I guess to be consistent with what ever is decided on the road ref tags.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/87315727

I made some further revisions to remove some more A4 tags in changeset/87318725. I realised after submitting that I reverted your removal of A4 on way/385523796 which is currently named Western Distributor. I would have thought that way, and also way/650388086 (which probably should be renamed to Western Distributor??) should have the A4 tag. Before we make further changes, is there somewhere we can get a definitive source for this?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/87315727

Do you have the correct reference for this? I assume the AGL URL was a mistake ;)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/87242841

Some fixes for this are in changeset/86927194
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/86927144

Here are the plans from the City of Sydney, which are consistent with what was built based by a site survey.
https://meetings.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/documents/s11226/Attachment%201%20for%20TRAFFIC%20TREATMENT%20SHARED%20ZONES%20John%20Street%20St%20James%20and%20Woolley%20Lane%20Glebe.pdf

Some supporting references:
https://www.sydneywatertalk.com.au/johnstonscreek
https://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/vision/better-infrastructure/parks-and-playgrounds/current-works/improving-crescent-federal-park

I had noticed that all the paths in our area were tagged as Cycle paths with foot access allowed and was wondering why they weren't Shared. Is it valid to do a big bulk update of them in the parks in my area? Or does it make no real difference?

For this edit, I was just splitting and adding the bridge tag where appropriate.

Note that the pdf source says the overpass is permanently closed, but the shared path is only temporary. As the replacement shared path, when build, will certainly be a new route, so I have deleted the existing pathway.