Hi Jack,
some of those shapes might need a bit of simplification to reduce the node count (but still preserve details)

There is a SimplifyArea plugin for JOSM that can be tuned well

Hi Sphilbrick,
thanks for adding tons of information.

Just a small thing, the name= tag is reserved for an actual name of the object and descriptive information is placed into separate tags.
e.g.
Private access => access=private

Information about trail routes is a bit more complicated, because it is stored inside relations
Blue Trail => color=blue
relation/12181034

I think Mundilfari here pretty much summed up my opinion on this topic.

But if anybody wants to bring this issue to attention of iD maintainers or propose a solution to type #1 and #2 cases please do so here
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/8590

OSM project is trying to capture all existing features regardless of who owns them. We tag them as private, but it is up to the data consumer how they handle these cases.

Even though some paths or roads can have restricted access they might be used in case of e.g. medical emergency or forest fire.

But I completely understand that it doesn't feel good when someone is watching your back yard for no good reason. In these cases I can recommend two things:
1) placing "no trespassing" signs at the entrance of the trails so people are aware that they shouldn't continue further.
2) Contacting the makers of Alltrails and ask them to remove or disable routing through paths marked as access=private and access=no. Many other apps handle these cases just fine and there is no reason why their app should send people wandering into private properties.

Here is their support page:
https://support.alltrails.com/hc/en-us/requests/new

The trails are correctly marked as access=private, which is the correct way of handling objects with restricted access.

@cmoffroad
with free projects it works as such that if you need something, you do it yourself or you go to someone who knows how to do it and you ask them nicely if they can do it for you: https://github.com/mapbox/osmcha-frontend/issues

IMO with words like "disrespecting" you are pulling a lot of assumptions about someone's motivation and giving too much credit to the importance of other people

@Lee Carré
Check those two links I posted above (they are from dev version of overpass run by user mmd). I use those for viewing large bbox changesets.
Generally algorithms should adapt to users' needs and help us work less not the other way around.

Also if people would have got out and do surveys, there would be barely 10% of the data we have in OSM today.

Though a fair point is that it is the limitation of tools like osmcha and archavi than the extent of geographical area that prevents people from reviewing

https://dev.overpass-api.de/changeset-map/#110409629
https://dev.overpass-api.de/achavi/index.html?changeset=110409629
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110409629

Might be better to put the node on Fort Hill Road at the stop line with direction=forward/backward. I feel like people are slowly moving away from placing the sign on the intersection node.

highway=stop

Hi the highway classification follows function rather than appearance.

Since these roads still lead to houses they are most likely highway=residential, surface=dirt
(can also add osm.wiki/Tag:smoothness=)

if closed for traffic then also access=yes, motor_vehicle=no

surface=*
access=*

Tracks are for roads that are for forestry, recreational,... purposes.

Thanks for the fix. I think the address was supposed to be at one of the houses to the north and it got somehow misplaced here
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109807826

All good. Only one thing, when you add a building press Q to square the shape..
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109809731

I added club=sport + sport=sailing. Please check if that is correct.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109808680

Got it! Good work!

Hi,
Thanks for contributing!
Just a small thing, we don't put hiking trail blaze color as a name tag for the path. All that information is in relations. e.g. this is the purple trail relation/11785086

Also, which of the paths were marked as private?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109104311

Hi,
Thanks for contributing!
Just a small thing, we don't put hiking trail blaze color as a name tag for the path. All that information is in relations. e.g. this is the purple trail relation/11785086

Also, which of the paths were marked as private?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109104311

Hi,
Thanks for contributing!
Just a small thing, we don't put hiking trail blaze color as a name tag for the path. All that information is in relations. e.g. this is the purple trail relation/11785086

Also, which of the paths were marked as private?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109104311

Thanks! That looks great!

it has `symbol=White rectangle`, which should be described as `white::white_stripe`. At least some sites render it correctly..

I am in contact with Sarah and Nop and looking for solution for two color blazes.

Nice, thanks for contributing!