That arcgis link seems to divide up the state into "Administrative Unit Names", each with "Such and Such Field Office". That implies to me that this is the field office responsible for BLM lands within that area.

From their web site (https://www.blm.gov/office/san-luis-valley-field-office): "The San Luis Valley Field Office manages nearly 500,000 acres of public land in Colorado’s Rio Grande Basin."

If you pull up individual parcels in ArcGIS, there's a field "Allotment Name" which is what should go in the name field, and there's also "Allotment Number" which likely should go in the ref tag.

Are you seeing cases where individual parcels have an Alltoment Name of "Such and Such Field Office"?

This seems a little strange to me to name BLM lands as a "field office"? Is that actually the name of the area or just the name of which office is responsible for it?

Hey, so I don't know if it was your edit that did it, but the Caldwell boundary currently has a huge gap in it.

Thanks for mapping the Narragansett Indian reservation! It looks like there's a misalignment between that boundary and the Francis C. Carter preserve just to the north where I'm guessing they should be adjacent. Did you trace this boundary by hand or was there a GIS file of some kind available?

Merci pour l'avis, j'ai supprimé les routes.

Thanks for noting these issues (and comments on other changesets), I'll be starting to work through these areas and address problems noted.

Hello and welcome again to OpenStreetMap! This particular historic district is based on the former location of a mill which sat along that river. Though I agree that putting it directly in the river is probably not the right location, so I've moved it a few meters south to where descriptions have the mill ruins.

JOSM swallowed my changeset comment. Should have said: "Move historic district node over the mill ruins"

JOSM swallowed my changeset comment, should have read "Cleanup water and natural features, retrace and align to imagery"

Yeah, I'm not sure either, except that I'm confident this funny looking polygon is not actually what's real on the ground. But in any case, I just resurrected, merged, and simplified the original stream geometry here: way/76748067

I guess it's a local problem now :)

Thanks for the note, I've restored the missing section of stream in changeset/109162161 and marked it intermittent as it is completely dry in the Ortho HR imagery. Note that there is not much of an issue with tree cover in that spot and the water geometry was clearly mapped through open areas without trees (and without stream). I updated the stream so that it matched the ditch line that was visible in several spots.

The stream way is here: way/587928916

Hi,

It seemed like this tiny stream was better represented by a waterway=stream. The areas looked like they were bad import data. Is there a better imagery source I should be using? I was using "Ortho HR" which indicated it was less than a year old? Is there a different source that is better for mapping water features?

Generally speaking, these changes were all corrections to issues identified by the JOSM validator on a sparse download of river areas and waterways. The most common issues were geometry overlaps and islet tagging.

@Lee Carré I am well aware of the various discussions (many people at this point are subscribed to the changesets given the recent community interest in @Friendly_Ghost's large changesets), and I am following them with great interest. I realize that you are passionate about this topic, but personal attacks are simply unacceptable and I ask you to stop.

@Lee Carré: please stop with the insulting language. It is not helpful and does nothing to advance the discussion.

Okay, now you're just showing off :)

Hello, this edit has caused a gap in the boundary of Cleveland:
relation/115393

JOSM swallowed my commit message. Changeset comment should have said "Fix tagging issues on Ohio boundaries"

Hey there, can you give a bit more detail about what these changes were? It's kind of a large changeset so we're not quite sure what actually changed. It looks like some route relations were deleted?

Hi, you tagged this as a track road, however, it looks like there are houses on this road, therefore it should probably be highway=residential with the appropriate surface tags for unpaved roads.