Thanks for reaching out. This is a new tag I'm just experimenting with. I'm not satisfied with my initial round of `landmark` values (they're too low) but the idea is to have a way to convey notability for maps and search. Open to feedback!

Hi BeaconOSM, just an FYI I had to revert this changeset since Skippack isn't an admin boundary, it's a census designated place.

I really don't mind having the historic river course in OSM but this has to be additional to the flowlines through the reservoir. I had to go through and re-add a lot of the deleted data. I would kindly ask that you familiarize yourself with the current OSM lake and reservoir mapping patterns before attempting other changes like these.

Thanks, I don't know much about horse mapping.

Hi Ktr101, thanks for your changes, I'm afraid they go a bit against convention. Features tagged waterway=flowline are usually mapped along the centerline of the body of water, regardless of the historic path of a river under a reservoir. I would support including the historic geometry but with a different tag, and leaving the central flowlines in place.

Hi Glassman, this is a new tag I'm experimenting with. It means that this peak is the highest point within a country (admin_level=2). This is a similar pattern to capital=2. Maps sometimes want to prominently show the "highest points" of states and countries regardless of their elevation.

I welcome feedback on this tagging. Eventually I plan on writing a wiki page.

Yeah, I added the `natural=gorge` POI here: node/1570341725

Hi, it's just the name of the gorge/canyon on this river section. It's in the local name (English). If there is a better tag for this then let me know.

Okay, I updated the tag to `ref:US:FWS` in changeset/165607173. This is consistent with a few existing tags like `ref:US:NPS`

Hi, thanks for the feedback. I'm not sure I understand the benefit of the distinction. USFWS is the common acronym for the data source. This is similar to the `ref:usfs` tag.

Oh I guess I wasn't clear. I corrected the data in changeset/164654386

Hi b-jazz, it looks like the gage is indeed on the golf course, but based on bing streetside it's about 370 feet to the east. These things are usually pretty small so can be hard to map from imagery, but if you know what you're looking for you can sometimes spot them. In any case, all these stream gages were imported from the highest quality USGS data I could find, and the location is often off by a bit. It seems that even USGS doesn't know exactly where the gages are. I figured it's still useful to have a general sense of the location and then they can be micro mapped later.

Thank you both for the review. I've fixed those features per your comments.

Yep, that's my preferred approach. Though personally I would put `name=McKenzie River` and `rapids:name=Eagle Rock Rapids` on the river line. Then I would also map the rapids separately as a node with `waterway=rapids` or an area with `water=rapids`, and `name=Eagle Rock Rapids`. This conveys the most information. Waterway relations don't really convey their attributes to their member ways in most OSM applications.

Hi all, avid canoe mapper here. I'm the one that updated the wiki page to discourage `waterway=rapids` as a centerline. My recommended tagging is to treat rapids as an attribute of a river and use `waterway=river` + `rapids=yes`. There are few reasons for this, but basically there are a lot of rapids mapped perpendicular to the flow (like a weir) and there's not an easy to tell which is which if we also use the same tag for centerlines. Plus there's not really an advantage to making every data consumer support `waterway=rapids` like rivers. Rapids can appear on streams, canals, etc., so we don't want to lose the waterway type information.

Discussion in Europe where they've mapped a lot of rapids: changeset/150012234

I didn't mean "city", obviously

@jake-low Okay gotcha. I'm happy to manually revert this edit if you'd rather look at these one by one. I'm honestly not too satisfied with the `game_land` value. I don't think it's self-explanatory to a wide audience, and I don't want to imply hunting is the main or only purpose of these lands. The goal is to imply that these areas provide "wildlife as resource", otherwise we want to tag them `wildlife_refuge`. The `hunting=`, `fishing=`, and `trapping=` tags can be used to specified particular activities. Let's talk more about tagging on Slack.

If anyone is looking for other examples of this mapping pattern, I did this for the Delaware River last year and it's made it much easier to map the waterways in detail without messing up the alignment of the shipping channel. relation/17179044

Hi Glassman, this changeset just adds the tag `protected_area=game_land` to protected areas operated by Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. This is part of a `protected_area=` tagging effect that @jake-low and I are experimenting with to create better `boundary=protected_area` subcategories. Pretty much every state has a game/wildlife service that operates land that designated for hunting/fishing/trapping (separately from state parks, forest, etc.), so the idea is to give them all the same tag.

Lol sorry for making a huge bounding box. Blame relation/8907468 for crossing the antimedirian.