Hi,
I do a lot of mapping in Alaska and am very interested in this proposed bridge. Unfortunately, the URL you provided in this Changeset comment doesn't exist at this time. Do you happen to have an updated link or source of information?

Thanks,
Dave

Hello,

The areas you have tagged as "gardens" are mapped very poorly and improperly. PLEASE READ the Wiki definition of leisure=garden before continuing what you're doing.
leisure=garden
You have not answered my previous Changeset comments nor my PM addressed to you on other issues. Why?
If you don't speak English or don't speak English well, we have Thai speaking OSM members who can assist you.

Other Thailand mappers are very concerned about your mapping and failure to respond to our advice or questions. It is possible that you will be blocked form further mapping activity for those reasons.

Hi,
I am using the riverbed object for rivers in Alaska that occupy large areas in the spring but later run in much smaller channels. These channels I tag with waterway=riverbank.

I'm curious about this object:
Vikedalselva (id:685121386)

The way you're using waterway=riverbed here seems incorrect. To my way of thinking, this area should be a waterway=riverbank.

Can you tell me why you decided to tag this water body the way you did?

Thanks,
Dave

Okay, thanks for your clarification. I am going to add a "note" tag with the intention of explaining that the trail has been surveyed and is mostly steps. I have no problem with the way you tagged it but wanted to be sure it wasn't a tagging error.
I dislike highway=path for hiking trails because it is not specific enough and makes such ways seem to be accessible by wheeled vehicles, hence IMO, highway=footway is much to be preferred.
In this case, highway=steps is really the only sensible tagging alternative. It isn't perfect but there is no other way to do it.
Thanks for your quick reply.
Dave

Hi,

I'm mapping some streams and trails on Doi Suthep and noticed that you tagged the Pilgrim's Path as highway=steps for its entire length. I haven't walked this trail but it seems strange that it would be entirely steps. I saw some steps at a point where it crosses 1004 and the trail is shown on OpenTopoMap as steps, so that may very well be the case. I'm wondering if your edit last fall was based on your personal experience or perhaps on OpenTopoMap?

Thank you,
Dave

Actually, it appears that the way id:82189093 mentioned above might actually be a canal or stream. Perhaps it was incorrectly tagged as a highway and you removed those tags but forgot to retag the way?

Hi,

In this changeset you deleted the tags from a highway that was added in 2010 and left it as an untagged way containing 272 nodes. This should have produced an error message when you uploaded it.

I added the tags back but would you please check your work on this changeset to better understand what you did and why.

Dave

Hello,
I see you have added ford=yes to some places where waterways cross highways in my neighborhood. The way you used that tag is incorrect. A "ford" is a place where a vehicle crosses *through* a waterway, not over it. In other words, there is no bridge or culvert. The wheels will get wet in such a crossing.

Just because the original mapper didn't place either a bridge or a culvert at a crossing does not mean it is a ford. He or she may not know what sort of crossing it is and left as is until such time as it could be checked by a ground survey.

Please review your edits and remove any other "fords" that look similar to this one . I removed this ford and several others nearby. In the future, please check the Wiki to understand the correct use of this tag.

Thank you,
AlaskaDave

Hello,
I see you have added ford=yes to some places where waterways cross highways in my neighborhood. The wa you used that tag is incorrect. A "ford" is a place where a vehicle crosses through a waterway, not over it. In other words, there is no bridge or culvert. The wheels will get wet in such a crossing.

Just because the original mapper didn't place either a bridge or a culvert at this crossing does not mean it is a ford. He or she may not know what sort of crossing it is and left as is until such time as it could be checked by a ground survey.

Please review your edits and remove any other fords that look similar to this one . I removed this ford and others nearby.

Well, I don't recall. I did drive through that area and made a ton of edits. It's possible I didn't see any track or "footway": when I was there. As you know, Tiger tracks are scattered all over Alaska and are sometimes positioned in terrain where its possible to see that it isn't there now and simply never was there. The North Slope, for example, is full of such "tracks". I try to align them using existing imagery when they are visible but I sometimes just delete them.

Actually, I was getting ahead of myself a bit. I believe ชม. 3065 continues at least to the park entrance road and perhaps beyond however I did not see any ref markers on that section. The Pha Chor access road and its continuation past Parking Lot #3 is now a paved loop and returns to the park entrance road. There are new painted milestones along that loop road but as yet no refs on them.

Hi Russ,

I was just at Pha Chor (Mae Wang NP) yesterday and added some newly marked route refs. My question is about a section of highway old ref ชม. 5104 that you updated a few months ago to ชม.3065.

I believe ชม.3065 continues straight into the Pha Chor tourist site. There is a brand new metal flag marker to indicate this. Can you check your data to see how you decided ชม. 3065 turns south here (18.5313, 98.7772)?

Thanks, Dave
PS: There is an newly paved loop road that replaces a lot of the dirt tracks in the park. Fantastic ride and scenery.

I didn't see anything wrong - perhaps it's another rendering problem. That entire area is a mess. Many inner areas (unwooded) span two multipolygon relations. Ugly!

No problem. The slow rendering of OSM throws me off too.
Whatis the relation ID of the wood in MHS?

These relations are so big and complicated that it's very easy to mess one up. The folks that did the first big multipolygon included the entire mountainous region becaue they assumed it was all forested. Wrong! Now, with better imagery, we can see many places that are unforested areas and during recent years we mappers have inserted hundreds of inners to better show reality. But in the process those things have grown into monsters!

I think I see the problem. I did change the wood multipolygon boundaries slightly but the OSM imagery hasn't kept up with those changes.

If you zoom in, the forest will reappear. After a time, it will appear at all zoom levels.

Hi,
When I look at that multipolygon relation inside JOSM, everything looks fine. But I was working in that area yesterday so if something is strange, I might have caused it.

I will look at it later and let you know what I can find out.

Please feel free to go ahead.

That's exactly where I placed it.
So what's the point of your reply? Am I missing something you're trying to tell me?

**compiled in 1968**

I don't know who is right. My experience with my other goto source, the Dictionary of Alaska Place Names, was compiled in 198 and their coordinates are sometimes significantly off.

If you have a better alternative, go ahead and correct the position. I did not see "another guy" or another position.

Maybe I was the "other guy"? I added the node using the Dictionary of Alaska Place Names coords then changed it a few minutes later.

There was no Pillar Mountain node before I added it AFAIK.