Add protected_area=wildlife_refuge to national wildlife refuges

Oh wow, I’m not sure how this happened. Must have forgotten to click save between edits in iD.

Hah thanks! But no, sadly, I’m just adding the mimics tag to various fun buildings

Good question. This wasn’t discussed but I’m just updating nodes I personally mapped. There are a few issues with canoe=put_in, which is why I started using waterway=access_point as a replacement. Now that this tag has caught on, I’m updating canoe= to be an access tag, which is much more standard and flexible. A boat launch may have different access restrictions for different types of boats, and canoe=put_in can’t specify the canoe access separately. Some mappers have also used put_in to mean you can only launch a boat but not take one out, but I never used it that way so it’s misleading to leave it on.

Hmm I don't remember but it was one of those. I should have left a better changeset comment lol. I was using this inspector: https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry

Hi, thanks for the info! I agree that breaking up the trail into sections is useful, but having four layers of relations does make it hard to maintain. I'm going to collapse these relations down to make it more like the Pacific Crest Trail: relation/1225378

I opened an issue at Waymarked Trails to support three-letter classification acronyms in `network:type` as well as in `network`. https://github.com/waymarkedtrails/waymarkedtrails-backend/issues/16

Hi wegerje, thanks for your work on the CDT. I'm curious about the relation structure, with four levels of routes. Most routes in OSM has two routes at most, and I'm not understanding a meaningful division of the routes. Does this come from source data? If so, could you point me to it? Thanks!

You seem like you care a lot about this and you're probably from this area so I'll defer to you. I'd suggest also expanding the wikipedia article with this information if it isn't already there.

I think sometimes something can be a bay of the Lake but not part of the Lake. I wouldn't call Chesapeake Bay part of the Atlantic Ocean, even though they're adjacent and share many of the same properties. Simply from aerial imagery, the waters look significantly different. I doubt someone in Glen Haven would say "I live on Lake Ontario". Wikipedia just calls this a "large body of water" that "flows into Lake Ontario at its northern end". I'd want to see a source that shows this bay is culturally or hydrologically considered part of Lake Ontario.

shop=camp

Camp stores are somewhat different from convenience stores so I've been updating these. Feel free to change it back if you want.
https://overpass-turbo.eu/?w=%22shop%22%3D%22camp%22+global&R

Done in changeset/158014656

Hi mueschel, I assume you're talking about node/12080242757 ? I agree the webcams should be mapped separately when possible. I think also having the webcam links on the monitoring site is still useful. But in this case the stockade bridge webcam is somewhat upstream and should be mapped and then those tags removed. https://ny.water.usgs.gov/maps/mohawk-icejam/

Oh I see now. That was clearly a mistake. Probably there were multiple piers in a multipolyon and I used the iD merge command on that mulitpolyon and the river area and the tag got added.

Yes, I've been adding isolated bridge piers as inner ways to river area multipolyons. Is this controversial? They're functionally permanent obstructions in the river, same as islands.

(southern Alaska)

This node was imported from NHD, which makes me think that this gage probably existed at some point (though not necessarily at this exact location). Normally I would use `disused:monitoring_station` instead of deleting it, but as there is no NWIS ID number or other identifier associated with the station, the distinction would be essentially useless. There are over 1.7 million historical USGS monitoring stations, but only about 15,000 active. These I'm maintaining in OSM with this tool: https://github.com/quincylvania/usgs-to-osm

Happy to help! If you're curious check out https://github.com/quincylvania/usgs-to-osm

Yeah good point. `ele:accuracy` has been in use for awhile. `ele:datum` should be removed upon conversion but I figured it was better than not having the elevation or not specifying the datum.