Hi, I suspect you didn't mean to drop this "landuse=yes" area here - I'm not sure what it is, but you can probably update it: way/802991620/history
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/85092747

Though yes, it does look like it should be Schuster with a "c": http://www.cityofloveland.org/home/showdocument?id=49512

Well, google maps alone is not a good source, for one thing the license prevents us from copying data over, even if it appears factual (there are errors in google maps too). Fortunately in this case the name Schuster Lake is used quite a bit by the city, and in permit applications in the area, and it is the name of the associated subdivision, so while I'm not sure how often people use it day-to-day, it does seem to be clearly named Schuster Lake.

Hi, thanks for your contributions to the map. Is the road you deleted truly gone? IE, not there anymore at all? If not, then being tagged "highway = track" is appropriate, because that is for unmaintained agricultural and forest roads. If the road is present, but you couldn't drive a 4wd vehicle down it, then it could be downgraded to highway = path. Usually if something is present on the ground it shouldn't be deleted from the map, just adjusted to accurate tagging.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84915656

Hi, the road you removed was tagged "highway = service" and "service = driveway" which means it is a driveway - these are used by delivery services and emergency services for figuring out access to homes, can you please restore it? Thanks!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84915447

Thanks for your additions, but I think you made these off of old imagery - in this area Mapbox and Esri Clarity are over 10 years old now, even though they look nice. Check the area again with Maxar or Bing, you'll see the parking and sidewalk areas have been reconfigured quite a bit. Thanks!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84926939

State laws usually give school administrators wide authority to restrict access to the school grounds and roads, and violating those restrictions can be considered trespassing, even though the property is publicly owned. Some more info here: https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/access-public-property

"Private" probably works pretty well for the road classification, but if you want something more general, "destination" restricts routing to someone who is actually going to that location.

Nothing to be sorry about, thanks for your addition to the map! Just wanted to let you know about the other effort in case you are interested in participating. Happy mapping.

Hi, before adding more buildings using this method you may want to look into the ongoing Denver building and address import project that is currently in progress and covers this area of Denver. The building trace quality is much higher than mapwithai, and it includes full address data.

Information on the import and how to participate if you'd like is here: osm.wiki/Denver_Planimetrics_Import

And we also discuss in the #local-colorado channel of the OSM-US slack.

Thanks!

Sorry, no questions, but I can see how you read it! I was just adding that, given the situation, I think the extra "closed" text indicators in the name field, while a bit unconventional, are an OK way of communicating what is going on with the construction, given the complexity of the project. All good!

Given the complexity of the changes I think a little extra verbosity is warranted here, just my two cents.

You are right that sidewalks are a bit of an odd case, many times with "routable" features you have to make some compromises between "drawing a picture of the world" and "representing the logical relationship between routable roads, paths and other features.

You can do it two ways - a totally acceptable one is to just continue the sidewalk and make sure there is an intersection node with the road.

To expand on that you could then tag that node as a "Marked Crossing" or "Unmarked Crossing".

Finally, you can make a short connector where the whole connector is tagged as "Marked Crossing" or "Unmarked Crossing". I added a few of these around the View Point Road/Bear Mountain Driver intersection so you can see what I mean. Hope that helps!

Hi, good work on all the sidewalk additions! If I can make a request, please link the sidewalks to the rest of the network by connecting them to the roads at both formal and informal crossing areas. Right now the sidewalks are "floating" and therefore unusable for pedestrian routing engines. Thanks - phidauex
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84296091

Hi, with leisure=common being deprecated, a lot of folks have been trying to figure out what the best tagging is. In CO we are using "leisure=recreation_ground" when the area is used for paths and walking dogs and the like, but isn't a developed "park" in the municipal sense.

"landuse=grass" may also be useful if the area has grass, but isn't otherwise developed for light recreation (no paths, for instance).

Hi, these service roads were deleted months ago due to construction. I'll fix it here because I'm adding the apartment building that was here before, but when you see a "landuse=construction" area, double check newer imagery or otherwise think twice before adding roads back that may have been intentionally removed. Thanks - phidauex.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/81390096

FYI, if you'd like to join the OSM US Slack, there are channels for tagging questions, and a Colorado channel for regional mapping questions and discussion. Invite link can be retrieved here: https://slack.openstreetmap.us/

Hi, thanks for checking - the point was on this bridge, connecting it to the river. It was super-minor and I fixed it as I was working on some other things. Don't sweat it, you are doing a lot of good improvements and thought you'd appreciate the note. TIP: When on the main map view, right click near something and select "query features", it will show you what ways enclose the spot you clicked, and what is nearby. Very helpful for interrogating the map for details while working. way/793244971 Happy mapping!

Thanks, that looks good for now. I do think there is some work to be done in classifying Open Space, as we do it in Colorado - it defies a lot of normal tagging because it is protected, but also not really "for" anything - it is just space that is intentionally kept open, but with somewhat vague uses. In Boulder, it can be a nature reserve, but it can also be leased out to farmers.

In any event, this way you are at least tagged consistently with the others in the state, and when some better plan comes together for tagging open space, it will be easy to find and update.

The numerical designations are indeed confusing... As for the relation type, "multipolygon" was deprecated a while back for boundaries, it is best to use type=boundary. It is OK that iD doesn't call this an "area", the rest of the system knows what a boundary is.

As for the other tags, I believe "protected_area=nature" to just be a mistake, that isn't a documented tag with any consistent use, I think "protect_class=5" or maybe 6 is most appropriate, alongside recreation_ground and/or nature reserve, depending on the use of the land.

Check out South Table Mountain Park's relation, which I updated a while back while making open space areas in Boulder/Denver/Jeffco more consistently tagged: relation/7088454

Hi, I agree that a relation is the right way to do this, but the tagging may need to be updated a bit. I believe current practice is that the relation should be "type=boundary" rather than multipolygon, and instead of protected_area=nature, the tag "protect_class=5" would be more appropriate. The leisure=nature_reserve and landuse=recreation_ground are possibly redundant, but I've been including them on a lot of similar open spaces in CO to make sure they get scooped up by the data consumers, though in the future I think the protect_class tag is more precise.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/83787470