Hello. Why did you change this building to an oil power plant? I'm quite sure it's never been one in the nearly 20 years I've lived in the area. Is there some news I'm unaware of?

Hey Cabot's. This is a common misunderstanding because the tag access=private is supposed to have a more specific meaning than common meaning of the word "private" (what you describe above). More details here: access=private#Clarification_of_the_term_%E2%80%9Cprivate%E2%80%9D

This is indeed a private road as indicated by the PVT on the sign. However all this means legally is that the road is maintained by the property owners rather than the town. It doesn't carry the same weight as a sign reading "no trespassing", "residents only", or similar would. Such a sign means that access is preemptively restricted and definitely indicates `access=private`. This road lacks an access restricting sign, but we still call it a "private road" and people generally do not go down private roads like this out of respect for the privacy of others. If someone with no business there go down this road, the property owners have the right to tell them to leave (trespass them) and now they legally must leave. The tag for this situation in OSM is access=permissive. This is confusing because it sounds like property owners are happy to allow you access to their land. What it really means is any normal private property situation. There is not preemptive indication of restricted access, but if the owner tells you to leave then you are legally required to do so.

For reference: access=*#List_of_possible_values

Hello and thank you for mapping in Vermont! You appear to be mapping quite a few driveways as highway=residential here and in other change sets. These should be highway=service + service=driveway instead.

Thanks! 😄 Hopefully I actually improved the situation here. I'm not very familiar with public transit route relations, but JOSM was complaining about ordering problems so I did my best to fix them.

Thanks for checking in! I hadn't noticed, but seems fine to me. These are some very large areas of forest and the tree branches often reach over the narrow rivers, streams, and roads making them feel more a part of the forest than a break in it. I'm fairly adept at working with large multi-polygon relations, so it seemed reasonable to make the areas large. If you see value in splitting them up along waterways and roads, that also seems fine though.

No worries. It's easy to accidentally drag things.

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap, and thanks for the improvements you've been adding! Just a heads up, it looks like in this edit natural=sand was accidentally applied to the whole Cranberry Lake Wild Forest area. I went ahead and fixed it here: changeset/131246249

Yeah that would be fine. The opening hours syntax offers several different options for closing after midnight. I chose the first.
opening_hours=*#Closing_after_midnight

I thought about adding fee:conditional, but that would seem to imply that there is no fee some of the time. Although a permit holder doesn't have to pay a fee each time they park, they do have to pay a monthly or yearly fee for the permit. So there is always a fee of some kind.

Thanks! In the future, rather than deleting a demolished building, you might consider changing the tag from building=* to demolished:building=* and putting a note= tag on it. Here's an example: way/984365737
When the building is simply deleted but still visible on aerial imagery, another mapper can easily just think it's missing and add it back later. Leaving the object in the database with a lifecycle prefix makes this less likely while still removing it from map rendering.
osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/129210356

Hey Necessarycoot72, I've reverted this because you added information that applies to the Town of Colchester and this node only represents the smaller village of Colchester: relation/8897022

The two objects do not represent exactly the same thing. I explained this in a note on the village node. Please read notes left by other mappers before making changes.

Hey Nigel, Thanks for updating the AT/LT here with the new alignment. It looks like another mapper made some changes after you and now there are two parallel paths labeled as the AT. changeset/126845646
I'd like to get this cleaned up if you can share your on the ground knowledge.

Looks like this section is the new alignment?
way/1088536733

And what is the state of the old alignment? Closed, but tread still visible on the ground, or restored to natural looking state?

I've reverted the forest that was deleted and not replaced in this changeset: changeset/127906781
Please replace anything you delete, and ideally modify the existing objects instead.

wrong link above. Here is the correct restoration changeset: changeset/127906615

Thank you for the detailed work you are doing here! However, it's not ok to delete the work of previous mappers with a promise to replace it later. I have restored the trails deleted in this changeset here:
changeset/127794755

Moving forward, please modify existing objects instead of deleting and replacing. Thank you.
osm.wiki/Keep_the_history

Yes, please do your best to keep the history. Simply deleting and replacing the work of other mappers is frowned upon in the OSM community. You can find more information about how to do this here:
osm.wiki/Keep_the_history

I went ahead and changed this segment and another one nearby to highway=track as that is the more accurate primary tag anyway.
changeset/127599298

Looks like these might be old abandoned logging roads. I can see them on VCGI LiDAR, but I don't have on the ground knowledge of the state they are in.

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap. I have reverted this changeset as the building you've added here does not exist.
changeset/127598828

Hi there, thanks for working on trails in Vermont! This unclassified road looks a little out of place though. Was it a mistake?
way/1099761510

Again, thank you for adding address tags to this school. However, I and other Vermont mappers are not thrilled with the other changes you've made here. You deleted the previously mapped school grounds polygon and replaced with with a polygon presumably taken from the VT parcel dataset. You didn't list a source though, so I'm not sure. Including the large area of forest the school happens to own as part of the amenity=school polygon is not very helpful, as OSM does not aim to be a parcel map. In addition to not keeping the history for this object, you didn't copy over the tags from the previous object. Some of the gnis tags are certainly fine to get rid of, but gnis:feature_id and wikidata are both useful and should be preserved.

Presumably you removed the name tag from this school building because you felt it was redundant to have the same name on the building and the grounds area. However, now the address information is disconnected from the name and this is not an improvement. One can only see that 170 Main Street is a generic school building, and the object named Main Street Middle School has no address. Please preserve the address tags on the same object with the school name. It is also fine, and not redundant, to have the same address tags on the building and the amenity=school area around it.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/127059198