Hi, the service roads you added here were all demolished quite some time ago. Please be careful when adding MapWithAI features, and always check the latest imagery first (which in this area right now is Maxar Premium).
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/94716813

Hi, thanks for updating this new neighborhood. I see you used the "building=house" tag, but you drew the property lines. We don't typically map parcel boundaries, and the building tag is intended for the shape of the actual building. Can you update to an approximation of the actual building shape rather than the property lines? Thanks!

Hi Max, to be slightly more specific, I see that some of the changes are legitimate (such as removing leisure=park from Fort Robinson), but some of your changes have resulted in some major areas no longer being rendered, because they are using a protect class that is in transition. If you don't feel that a full revert is warranted, then please at least review your changes to make sure you aren't impacting local map users, and then participate in the discussion here: osm.wiki/United_States/Public_lands
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95815594

Hi Max, can I ask for your justification on these changes? Based on actual use, most of these areas are indeed either nature_reserve or recreation_ground (or both), and the current tagging scheme has been agreed to by local mappers to most accurately represent the use of these lands within the boundaries of OSM's tags.

I'd ask that you revert this change unless you've already discussed with other local mappers in a way I'm not aware of.

Hi, thanks for adding a lot of metadata on power plants in HI, however, the import seems to have caused some issues, too. Please inspect your additions and do a little clean-up, in particular there are plants added that aren't actually in operation yet, some untagged lines, and some plant names that might be incomplete. I'll try to fix a few, but you may want to look over the whole dataset.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/93317464

Hi JBH, thanks for working on the map, and I'm glad to see the city getting involved directly - accurate maps help everyone.

I think what the other user is asking for is that when objects exist in the map already, it is usually better to update that existing object with the new information, rather than deleting and creating a new object. OSM uses an object's "history" to track changes over time and is a powerful tool for quality control. Deleting and redrawing removes that useful history.

I also noticed that you abbreviated the names of the streets in a later change - the way you did it at first was actually correct! Computers are very good at abbreviating (Street -> St), but are bad at unabbreviating (St -> Street? Or Saint?), so the rule in OSM is to put in all street and address information unabbreviated, and then let the map rendering tools abbreviate as needed. osm.wiki/Naming_conventions

Thanks - happy mapping!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/91532289

Hi Jonathan - thanks for jumping into the mapping exercise, however you've made a few unintentional errors that need to be corrected.

First, I see you've made large square areas of grassland - the landuse tags are really only for areas carefully drawn to match the environment, rather than for a big grid square. Those should probably just be deleted.

I also noticed that you added a second creek on top of Elkhorn Creek. Since the creek was already mapped the additional linework isn't needed, so that can be deleted as well.

Let me know if you have any questions, thanks!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/90840297

If the trail goes up and down, then you can just omit the tag entirely. You could also then omit mtb:scale:uphill.

If a trail is directional, then there is a button on the way info to indicate "oneway", which adds the tag "oneway = yes". If the one-way arrows are pointing the wrong way, then next to the one-way button near the top there is a "reverse way" option. You can also right-click on a way and "Reverse" it there.

Hi, looks much better! I made a few small tweaks, which you can see in this history view: https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/836527871

TIP: To get to these history views, select a way or object in the iD editor, and hit "Shift-ctrl-H" or "Shift-Cmd-H" on a Mac, which will bring up a little history window. From there you can click links to see that object's history, information about the user, etc. Very handy.

I made a few minor changes:
- Changed incline to "up" instead of "yes", this means that, if you are riding in the direction of the arrows on the way, you are going "up". The tag can be left off for trails that equally go up and down.
- mtb:scale:uphill is an optional tag that says how hard it is to go up, if the trail does indeed go up.
- Description is more for other mappers than it is for the map - I simplified the text a bit.
- I also simplified the sport tag, while you can put anything in there, some tags are very rarely used and not very useful. In this case, cycling + mtb tags implies mountain biking, which is understood by the routing tools.

Keep up the good work editing, and don't hesitate to ask if you have questions. You can also join the OSM US Slack channel if you have quick questions on tagging or want another set of eyes on your edits: https://slack.openstreetmap.us/

Hi, if you'd prefer an example, here are some correctly tagged singletrack trails near me - note that they specifically indicate the allowed uses, have mtb:scale and mtb:scale:imba, which are similar but not always the same, and all of the trails are included in a relation which groups them as "Heil Valley Ranch" and as a route of type "mtb", which helps rendering on many maps.

Picture Rock Trail: way/219358384#map=14/40.1949/-105.2782&layers=N

Lichen Loop trail - foot traffic only: way/569766840

The mtb relation "wrapping" the trails. Relations are a more advanced editing tool, but you can use this example as a guide: relation/8409088#map=13/40.1731/-105.2855&layers=N

Hope that helps!

Hi folks, hope you don't mind another opinion. I've had to address issues like this a few times, and there are a lot of options for resolving them. In most cases I'm in favor of leaving the trails in place and simply tagging them correctly. However, I have enough wilderness management experience to know that sometimes a trail is just too attractive as a shortcut, and too damaging to the environment, and needs to be removed from the maps.

In those extreme cases I suggest leaving the geometry in place and changing the main tag to "disused:highway=path", then adding a note such as "note = These trails are closed for environmental restoration, please do not re-map despite visibility in the imagery."

That way the geometry is still there, and an extreme user like a SAR group can still look for all highways, regardless of the lifecycle prefix, but the majority of users will not see it anymore (I'm 99% sure that disused: suppresses rendering in Carto and the other major renderers, but that can be double-checked). The geometry also stays in OSM with the note, so a future well-intentioned mapper doesn't just add it back in again, defeating your efforts.

Would that be a palatable solution in this case?

Thanks for confirming! I tidied up a few of the nearby route relation connections so all should be good now. Happy riding!

And while I'm asking questions, is the cycleway next to the railroad line? Or is it on top of the railroad line? Aerial imagery is a bit unclear and I'm not from the area. If it is next to the railroad, then it is mapped correctly now, but if it is on top, as it is in many western rail trails, then we would want to merge the ways.

Hi, thanks for adding to the cycle network! The tag for a way that can be used for nordic skiing is "piste:type = nordic" - piste is a french word for ski path that found its way into OSM. No need to indicate that it is only valid during snow - presumably people won't try to ski on it in the summer, though it isn't illegal so they can certainly try.

I also noticed that some of the ways are named inconsistently, some are Downeast Sunrise Trail and some are Down East Sunrise Trail. Can you confirm which is correct, and then update the incorrect ones?

Thanks, and let us know if you have additional questions.

Is there an aerial source that shows this yet? Maxar seems the most up to date but is still just showing construction work. If there are no overhead or even just photos of the work in progress then it will probably need a survey. I don't get out that way very much these days with work from home.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/88511083

According to this interesting reading, CO does have general exceptions to the usual weight limits for emergency vehicles. However, I think nearly every type of fire engine, even large type 1s, will be less than 86000 lbs by design. In the document there are a few examples of aerial platforms with a tiller on a third group of axles that could exceed 86000, but I'd pay good money to see someone try to make it up a dirt road in one...

https://www.fama.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/1514564588_5a466bec19c41.pdf

Weight limits at those high levels can impact even dirt roads which may be insufficiently shored, or have culverts to crush, or even just soil to liquify. I've had to move some substation transformers at ~120k lbs, and the gymnastics needed to move them is quite complex.

Don't let the front door hit you on the backside.

Driveways do indeed count, and are used by delivery and emergency services users of OSM data. It is true that we are all volunteers, but that makes it more important to follow the community guidelines, not less.

Hi, thanks for your mapping work in the area. Can I ask why you deleted all of the driveways from the neighborhood? It is bad practice to delete information from the database, as long as it is accurate.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/88039784

Thanks, I think that is the right choice. What are they trying to get out of the grouping? Common search results? I'm trying to think if there is another way to accomplish their needs.