You added this viewpoint but I don't see any way to access it. No roads or tracks. It is located in dense forest. How would a tourist get there?

Can you explain your reasoning for placing this?

Also, The name you tagged is certainly not correct — it is a description and does not belong in the name:en tag.

@Ze0zohk1
The reason Taginfo contains so many values is because there is no restriction or controls on how a mapper decides to tag an object. To make matters worse, some editor programs don't dismiss or call attention to a value that includes a slash character.

OSM practically encourages mappers to invent tags, which is a mistake IMO, especially for a new mapper. This mapper is perhaps thinking like an office memo writer where "dirt/sand" means a mixture of dirt and sand. Since no such value exists in the Wiki, he merely invented it on the fly. Then again, maybe he hasn't even read the Wiki.

Happens all the time.

@stephankn
This person does not respond to questions about his mapping. I've been deleting these "wilderness_huts" as I encounter them.

2020-12-26 I removed the access restriction and changed surface tag to concrete

I agree with PerplexingPenguins but if there is a different name being used by the assessor's office then add that name using the tag
official_name=East Redwood Court.

This way, people using the map to find this road will be looking for the version on the road sign "on the ground" rather than a name that is invisible to them.

Adding a clarification:
The slash character is never used in the value side of a tag. If the road is mixed sand and dirt, then it might better be tagged surface=dirt or surface=unpaved.

If you were tagging a restaurant that serves pizza and hamburgers it might have cuisine=pizza;burger. Note the use of the semicolon as separator.

The classification of highways is actually a bit tricky. If one uses highway=track for these roads, that implies a road that is not constructed for carrying vehicles except for farm tractors and the like. Most logging roads that I've seen might be better classed as highway=service with tags to indicate surface, smoothness, etc. If it is a larger road, compacted and in use by heavy vehicles, then I think highway=unclassified is a possibility, again with tags for access, surface, etc.

The Wiki definition of highway=unclassified is very loose and therefore it's difficult to make a positive determination.
We're gone around and around on highway classifications on the Thailand forum but have never reached consensus.
My 2 cents.

Hi Kurt,
I was mapping in this area and noticed this footway you added a couple of years ago. It would be really helpful to other hikers if you could add more information about the trail. For example, surface, visibility, width, degree of difficulty, etc.

This extra stuff is not required obviously but it would really add to the value of the trail data.

Best, Dave

See you soon.

Hi,
I noticed you added a waterfall in the middle of a wooded area near Doi Inthanon. You didn't give a source other than Bing and I cannot see anything in that area at all. I'm curious as to why you added it. Were you perhaps hiking in that area and saw a waterfall?

Thanks,

Dave

I removed them. Thanks for the reminder.

Yes, sorry, I forgot to remove those extraneous tags. I'm importing new coastline for St Lawrence Island piece by piece using the source mentioned in my comment. I usually strip those tags off before uploading. I merely forgot to do it for this particular lake.

These are NOT wilderness huts. Please read the Wiki for a definition of wilderness hots.

I deleted them.

Hi,
You added a park with name=memorial brick in this changeset but I cannot see any names near it or any signs saying that this is a park.

Can you give me your source of information for this park?

Thank you.

Russ, I've been busy with other projects and this is the first chance I've had to continue our discussion.

As for your statement about roads becoming obstructed and (because of that) surely the tagging has to change, I disagree. The road's class is not determined only by physical characteristics but also by its importance in the movement of traffic. That highway is certainly important for it entire length and as such it is, IMO, a primary highway.

There are other reasons for my assertion. I located a milestone in Ban Nam Pheung at mile 179 in the tertiary portion of the highway that displays ref=106. In addition, there is a sign at the junction of Mahidol Road that shows 106 _crossing_ that highway. The sign has arrows for 106 pointing both north and south at that intersection.

The database you're using is interesting, especially for highways that carry no markings, but as we both know all too well, data like that aren't always decisively accurate in LOS. It's not the last word by any means.

What say you?

Thanks for the reply.

I fixed it already. It wasn't as bad as I thought at first glance. The error messages one gets when using JOSM aren't always super helpful either. I don't like iD at all and I imagine it could only be worse in that regard.

I sometimes look back at my older edits and ask myself, why did I do it that way? Or, what was I thinking?

Anyway, damage fixed. We go on to new projects and learn as we go.

Hello,

I was aligning coastlines for some islands close to Nuka Island and saw two islands that you had included in the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. The shapefile I have been using for the refuge does not include those particular islands (Way id: 688530271 and Way id:21674829). The history of those ways isn't clear but if you were the person that added them, can you verify that they are indeed part of the AM NWR?

Thanks,
Dave

Hello,
When you added Unalaska Lake in this edit session, you accidentally deleted a portion of the boundary relation for the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. I know this session happened a year ago but I'm curious if you can recall seeing any error message during the upload.

I added that boundary just before you did you editing. I can repair the boundary but it will take a while to get it done.

Well, if talking about it is a waste of time, would you mind if I reclassify that road to primary then?
It is weird to see the classification of a highway change at a node where the highway is identical on both sides (same pavement, width, traffic, etc.) just because a database, esp,. a Thai database, tells us the ref changes from 106 to nothing. I mean, it's the exact same road!

You know how it is with Thailand ref signs. One can never be sure if they are saying "R106 is that-a-way" or the next right IS R106. At best these highways are poorly marked compared to our home countries.

Regardless, I still think that highway should be a primary all the way from Mahidon Road to its southern terminus.

It's not a clear cut case so maybe we should ask other mappers about it in the Thailand OSM forum. What do you think?

Thanks so much for this helpful response. Please feel free to share our communications with the sponsors of your project. I can only hope it leads to a reduction of the use of the OSM database for this sort of project record keeping.

I added your response to the thread on the OSM Thailand Forum and asked for opinions regarding the removal of these transmission-site areas but I'm convinced they serve no useful purpose currently and should be removed.

Earlier in this comment, you mentioned ~400 areas added by this project. Do you have a list of identifiers for those other areas?

I'll let you know if I get any dissenting opinions, or you can subscribe to the thread yourself if you haven't already.

Thank you,
Dave