@ Ignobilis Change it back - you know better since you're local. Include a link in changeset notes to any reference to the lake's name.

Привет - исправлю вашу поправку!
The lake is CALLED "No Name Lake".
https://edits.nationalmap.gov/apps/gaz-domestic/public/search/names/51618316-63a3-5698-aea9-b152bbcebd6f/summary
Thanks!

I had a tough time with the State Line Trail - it's supposed to be open to ATV's and I'd been told that ATV ways should be tracks and not paths. But I could see in aerial imagery that it looked very much like singletrack in places, even as it also looked like a 4x4 road in others.
If a track is "open to ATVs" but probably can't accommodate them, it should downgrade to a path, right?
I guess I was waiting for someone in the field to verify what's there - so change it how you see fit!

Please see comments for changeset/117373881.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117366407

Please see comments for changeset/117373881.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117367085

Please see comments for changeset/117373881
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117371210

Hi Mashin - As you may remember, after extended discussion on the OSMUS Slack #trails channel late last year, there was overwhelming consensus (9 to 2) that removing the Name tag from a way simply because it's a member of a named relation is not desirable. Yet you are once again deleting trail names throughout Connecticut - in some cases you aren't transferring the data you're deleting into the relation, and in other cases you aren't even creating a relation, or if you are, it's just a one-member relation. You can't keep doing this just to see your trails show up in your favorite renderer if you are DELETING data in the process!
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117373881

Heya - 2 little inner-relation bits left over from this changeset - I don't want to delete in case this is somehow a real boundary or (more likely) an inner boundary that needs fixing.
way/1020719614
way/1020719327
Cheers!
- Greg

Pls note that the user that marked this changeset as "bad" has provided no change-specific feedback to me personally or within OSMCha.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115598194

Pls note that the user that marked this changeset as "bad" has provided no change-specific feedback to me personally or within OSMCha.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115619839

Heya - you probably already know this, since this change is 10 months old... but Forest Service Roads shouldn't be tagged as "service roads". Unclassified or track would be more appropriate, depending on usage.
Most routers will not route to a service road, as they are commonly just used for driveways, parking lots and private industrial ways.
If someone else already let you know, please ignore me! Cheers!
Greg

Also need to capitalize

Too many R's! :)

Thx Fogey. I didn't realize EFRX was done. That's depressing.

Hey Nate - where does EFRX tie down now if that stretch crossing 175th is disused?

Hey Tom - there's some untagged lines from that change. I'm not touching them, in case you're still working on this....

You don't seem to ever respond to my responses - as if you don't care about my rationale.
I noticed that you went into OSMCha and marked up FIVE changesets as bad, with comments on only 1. That's not how you use OSMCha, fyi. You need to mark ISSUES in each changeset - issues that need to be resolved.

Hello again...
Actually, railway right-of-ways are okay to add to OSM - (from railway=abandoned) as long as they are visible "from the ground or through aerial imagery". I do see that this practice is likely to be deprecated soon (as soon as they figure out how to export into OHM), but I wanted to finish the route relation that had been partially created for the CNE.
I agree - dismantled or demolished railways (no visibility of any kind) should definitely not be mapped. I did not map any stretches that were not visible - I was actually quite astonished at how much of it WAS visible.

On sources - that iD field was what I was talking about in my previous communication... but it's been a long time since that was an issue. I think the field was only 128 characters - I can't imagine that it's still that small. So I'll try to go back to putting sources in my changesets.
But you know very well what a pain it is - I see you only use "survey" as your source, when you do list a source! One of the few things that JOSM does better than iD.

So much to deal with here....

a) You seem to know that those "are definitely not official names", yet fail to name your source for that knowledge. In this same change you deleted the name of the Pond Mountain NA "Entry Trail", despite it clearly being the official name (www.pondmountaintrust.org > Trail Map tab). So I'm quite skeptical that you actually know what the trail names are - and I suspect that you just are guessing.
Please keep in mind that the name field is for "Common or Official usage" (name=*), which means if there is no official name, then the common name is acceptable. Just because the common name matches the trail blazing doesn't mean that it is invalid!

b) There is not enough room in the "source" field to name all my sources in every change. I do have sources for everything though - what specifically do you have questions about? I will ALWAYS respond to queries about my sources.

c) >You are adding peaks with elevation and names, deleting existing hiking relations, adding stream names...
- Elevation points are coming from many different sources, as GNIS data is notoriously bad, both in location of the elevation point, and actual elevation. I will often center the point using OpenTopoMap (much more accurate than old topos), and use common naming from Peakbagger or ListsofJohn, if the GNIS does not record the point.
- If I find hiking relations created with only one member, I am either deleting or combining them into a larger relation. A 1-member relation goes against the most basic OSM guidelines - it's pointless and a waste of your time and effort to make short unnamed trails into unnamed 1-member relations.
- Stream names are usually coming from the newer NHD dataset that can be found in many different places. The old NHD dataset currently used in many places on OSM is riddled with inaccuracies. Bull Mountain Brook near Kent is a good example.

Remember we are on the SAME TEAM: We both want the same thing - an accurate and usable dataset!
I honestly think we can work this out and come to an agreement - we are both obviously passionate about mapping, and that's exactly what OSM needs!

Greg

I take it back - the names are coming from the CFPA (www.ctwoodlands.org). Do you not consider them authoritative?