Hi Ewen Hill. Yes, I do remember why in this instance, as it happens. In a nutshell, because after I was at the place and stared with my own eyes at the name shown “on the ground” as “Lake Park”, I reverted as version 5 a change I had made years earlier.

If you look at the history in the database, you’ll see that I mapped out the park some 13 years ago. I remember cycling through, and finding contradictory sources as to its name, so I left it unnamed after becoming aware of the contention behind it. User “takamaxo” then added the name “Lake Park” three years later in version 2, and after I physically visited the place and saw the name “Moitch Park” on the ground I “corrected” it in version 3 based on that.

Two years later, I was physically back at the place, and saw some information boards say Lake but the name Moitch absent from where I had seen it years earlier. I remember spending quite a bit of time walking around to eliminate the possibility that the sign had been moved, but, no, at that moment in time it seemed to have been _removed_. At this stage, I was getting rather annoyed, the name of this place seemed to be in flux, so I left the name as Moitch based on what I had observed earlier and the possibility that maybe they’re just in the process of replacing the sign, and as version 4 added Lake as an alt_name to express the multitude of names I was clearly observing.

But two years later the sign still wasn’t back, so as that version 5 I relented and reverted to the name in version 2 by “takamaxo”, and because I could find no sources for Moitch at that time also moved Moitch to old_name.

Since then it’s become a bit of a hobby of mine to see what the park is called whenever I pass through.

So Ewen, please assume good faith. In your description to version 9 you mention “the same press release”; perhaps add it as a source? But even if Moitch is now observably the current name of the park, are you sure it should be “disused:alt_name=Lake Park”? Because I *have* seen the park (variously) called “Lake Park” over a *decade*, so I suggest it should be tagged with “old_name=Lake Park”? Yes, the difference between old_name and disused:alt_name is subtle, but are you absolutely sure nobody is calling it Lake Park anymore?

And just to be clear, I prefer the name “Moitch Park” over “Lake Park”. Imagine if the park was called “Lake Park” and the lake was called “Park Lake” … I hope you get my point 😃.

Done.

Thank you. You got to it before I did.

Yeah … go big or go home 😀.

You might also notice the changes are a day or two apart, and happened while the database was offline or unreachable. I don’t usually work like that.

You. Are. Awesome!!!

Amazing stuff. Please keep it up 👏😀.

It is just a named locality at the moment. Not sure the council really knows what it’ll be yet, but at least they’ve been trying for a few years now to turn it into something amenable. Right now a name and hope is all there is 😀. I’ve been driving past it for most of my life thinking “there could be something awesome here”.

As for segments, yes, they should be cleaned up. I can’t do that in my everyday editor though; I’d have to fire up JOSM.

No. I think it is a shipwreck, but can’t find it in the shipwreck database. Delete it.

Not all of the road has been closed, just “all main roads to the area”; see https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-08/demolition-of-asbestos-ghost-town-wittenoom-begins/102316358. It doesn’t say what the boundaries of that area are, but the intent clearly is to prevent anyone from going there, so it seems prudent to be conservative so we don’t route anyone all the way out there. In addition, the government is struggling to stop idiotic people from going there BECAUSE it isn’t permitted (and which might then inadvertently carry that crap out of the area), so being aggressive in tagging the road so nobody goes there anymore also seems reasonable. But ultimately, if the road into the area is closed permanently, then abandoned seems the right lifecycle prefix.

Open to suggestions though.

Nice. So it does exist, and that is where it is 😃. Great work, and thank you for confirming.

But perhaps adding areas instead of buildings is the better way to go. They could just lease a part of a building, or sublet to third parties such as Darling Darling. 🤔

The OSM inspector messages can be fixed I think, next time I’m on.

Not sure about the spaces. I only know which buildings and parking lots the university either owns or leases, and even here I’m not always 100% where one building ends and another begins. But I wanted to start somewhere.

I’m not ready to assume anything about the gaps.

You’re right. I removed the landuse=quarry from the relation (it should not have been there), and tried to add the other quarry faces to the relation but my editor is giving me grief. I’ll keep at it.

As for the name, you’re not the only one. However, that appears to be the most prevalent name currently; see http://inherit.stateheritage.wa.gov.au/public/p/16788. I also sighted a newspaper article from 1930 that also used that name. But if you have another name with better references, let’s use that.

There are supposed to be six quarries in this group, not four, on two “levels”, three in a lower and three in an upper “level”. I can’t make that out on the imagery though.

Thank you.

I think you deleted the state route 3 relation (6167926) in this change set. If so, could you please revert that?

I deleted the name on the pitch because the area that includes the stadium and the pitch is already named Subiaco Oval. I wasn’t sure which was more correct, but I was swayed by its Wikipedia entry and by my own perception.

Has it actually been demolished? I haven’t driven by recently, and the last time I did the stadium was still there.

Please remove your graffiti. Any contributions you make to improve the OSM are most welcome, but your graffiti is not an improvement.

Please remove your graffiti. Any contributions you make to improve the OSM are most welcome, but your graffiti is not an improvement.

Please remove your graffiti. Any contributions you make to improve the OSM are most welcome, but your graffiti is not an improvement.

Please remove your graffiti. Any contributions you make to improve the OSM are most welcome, but your graffiti is not an improvement.

Please remove your graffiti. Any contributions you make to improve the OSM are most welcome, but your graffiti is not an improvement.