is 峽 the most common translation for a mountain pass or saddle point?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179335249

is 峽 the most common translation for a mountain pass or saddle point?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179335249

is 峽 the most common translation for a mountain pass or saddle point?

my guess is Nalon was a typo of "Nason Creek Game Reserve" https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/law/WSRAgencyFilings/Community,%20Trade%20and%20Economic%20Development,%20Department%20of/2138.pdf - abolished in 1968, replaced with a bow and arrow hunting zone.

I couldn't find anything regarding Chelan County Park. I assume it was incorrectly placed there on some old map that the GNIS team added. since they've rescinded all of the park IDs it's probably not something they'd research now. I'd just retag with a `was:` prefix, otherwise it'll probably show up again in the future due to GeoNames.

this was an automated edit, but from what I can tell this:
* was on a USGS map (https://prd-tnm.s3.amazonaws.com/StagedProducts/Maps/HistoricalTopo/PDF/WA/250000/WA_Wenatchee_244605_1957_250000_geo.pdf as an example)
* made its way into GNIS (though has since been rescinded, all parks have been removed)
* then copied into GeoNames, Wikidata, Wikipedia

so... probably was a real thing of some sort 50-70 years ago, and is now difficult to completely scrub.

as for OSM: prob start with adding a lifecycle prefix to destroyed: or something? I can update OSM and Wikidata if you can't but don't have delete access to Geonames.

the wikidata tag is on relation/12144066 - aside from the sign at the JMT intersection all of the maps I have only call these the "Davis Lakes" and don't specifically name either one as "Davis Lake". do you have a source that does?

otherwise I by convention around here the individual lakes would be known as "Upper" and "Lower"
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177219459

the north side has a name on TNM now, I added it here too
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174800647

sure, and that's good. we can definitely use one.

couple things to note:
* passes/mountains shouldn't be moved unless there is a reason - we've been trying to get these aligned with the latest 3dep lidar scans, which are unlikely to coincide with administrative boundaries. moving Arc Pass, as an example, puts it quite a ways to the south of the true saddle point
* adding them to the boundary makes importing boundary updates somewhat more tedious/annoying and (tool dependent) can break the somewhat questionable practice of linking these nodes from their wikidata entities
* the Sierra runs much further north and south than is currently modeled
* type=multilinestring isn't a valid outer for the Mojave boundary relation - the Sierra crest is quite a ways away anyways
* and the new Mojave looks like a duplicate (same wikidata/etc) of the existing Mojave relation

mountain range tagging is fairly nacent, and inconsistent. take a look at other examples around the US (and world) https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2fXO for ideas. there has been a somewhat recent push to revive type=multilinestring.

anyways, hope this didn't come off as too abrasive. it's something that is useful just a bit complicated to complete.

this looks a bit odd, what are you trying to accomplish with the Sierra Nevada relation?

yep, wasn’t saying it was an issue at all. most of the sole trails to a lake have been named after the lake in osm. that’s what everyone calls them anyways.

only a handful of trails in Yosemite have official names.. the trailheads do, of course.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174360494

I removed everything that appears to be a duplicate
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/172372725

relations are collections of ways and/or nodes. hiking route relations are described here route=hiking . for most trails they are a a collection of ways (segments really) that make up a named trail. we don't use them consistently in the Sierra and less frequently in Yosemite since most trails don't have names. there are trails like the Mist Trail that have names and a corresponding relation relation/6451906 or others like the Forsyth Trail that have names but are missing a route relation way/131325321

generally speaking, they make it easy for apps and sites to find hiking trails and routes. sites like https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=12.0/38.0845/-119.5399 are purpose built for this.

when trails get really really long many tools start struggling to manage the size.. so now relations are capped to some number of members (like 2000-ish) but even that can get a bit unwieldy. so we break the big relations down into smaller ones. for the PCT the smaller relations are modeled after PCTA's section names. in this particular case CA section I extends from Tuolumne Meadows to Sonora Pass. see https://www.pcta.org/discover-the-trail/maps/overview-maps/ for more info.

the PCT sections are members of a superroute relation (a relation of relations) - this way we can still piece together the entire PCT - here it is relation/1225378

rangers stations near the PCT don't need to be included in the PCT relation - it's for the trail, trailheads, etc - I already removed it. thanks for the contributions!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/172768510

any chance you know (or can update) the trail visibility? I only see maybe a small section visible from satellite, and nothing obvious shows up on strava or 3dep.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/172964652

looks like this is already tagged on the building - see way/1427236740 ?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/172082933

it looks like some of these are duplicates of existing toilets - can you confirm? here's an example node/13166941738#map=19/37.874328/-119.353428&layers=N
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/172372725

it is helpful when the change description is more descriptive - a summary of what has been changed. this aids the community when reviewing. please consider this in the future, thanks!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/171749142

was the weighbridge tag added here intentional? way/996657748/history
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/171899484

looks like there there are two relations - see relation/16264390 and relation/16110926 . can you take a look?