& https://www.uesaz.com/rio-rico-to-harshaw/ for voltages

Also used EIA 860-2024 early release for generator capacities and start dates

Also some voltages here: https://ssvec.org/downloads/inserts/2018/August-2018-Special.pdf

Also please use JOSM when editing such large areas. iD does not have a verification capacity to make sure you are uploading quality data.

Hi,

Common practice is to have landcover multipolygons be separated if they do not touch. Please have each scrub area be its own multipolygon.

Was about to add this one today... Thanks

Yeah so you need to use multipolgyon relations (look at the link in the first message I sent) to avoid the overlapping. I did not mean to insult for "effort"; any contribution on OSM takes effort. It should be allocated properly, in my opinion. I personally greatly value quality over quantity. In the scrub that you map, you miss out on so much detail that I think is what makes a lot of Arizona so beautiful. Although the mountains here are predominately scrub, there are forests in canyons, large sections of rock, and desert grasslands. To familiarize yourself with the difference between some of the natural=* tags see my wiki page: osm.wiki/User:BubbaJuice/Heath_vs._Scrub. I would also just check natural=* for more general differentiation.

If I'm being completely honest the first time I mapped landcover by Mount Lemmon it was on iD and it was terrible. iD is not built to handle large amounts of data that are present to map in detail. After I had spent several hours gaining experience elsewhere in JOSM, I came back and redid all of the forest I drew.

I think it may be better if you redirected your effort into possibly mapping forest instead of scrub, as it is generally less complex. There is a lot of forest in northern Arizona that needs mapping. Reach out to me if you have any questions.

https://docs.tep.com/wp-content/uploads/Harrison-Substation-Location-1.pdf

Hi jRodriquez928,

Areas of natural=* cannot overlap. Please learn about relations: osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon. Once you think you are aware, please fix this issue.

Besides that, I appreciate the contribution but not the effort. There's a lot more intricacy to the scrub and wood that you're mapping that you are not appreciating. I would love to see if you improved detail rather than cover the map inaccurately. A good way to improve detail is to use a better editor for the type of mapping you're doing: JOSM.

Thank you,
BubbaJuice

https://docs.tep.com/wp-content/uploads/North-Alvernon-SELUP-October-2024.pdf also used as a source

I think you were simply mistaken in this one case. node/13011166798. Bridges typically have headwalls or are paved. This is an unpaved road which has neither.

I think I may agree with you in that my initial assessment was wrong and that the road seems to be at a higher elevation than the wash so there is probably a culvert which you may be able to see on Esri World Imagery.

I just do not like iD because of this because it allows users to pick between a bridge and culvert where it places endpoints arbitrarily. You can essentially just click the button and it "fixes" it, leaving accuracy behind.

Nice job identifying the substation.

Also NAIP

Hey pittrichimica,
Please do not add false bridges such as way/1392368068. I would appreciate a comment acknowledging that you saw this.
Thanks,
BubbaJuice

And USGS 3DEP!

DOI link:
https://doi.org/10.3133/fs20173035

Thanks for contributing!

Apologies for the large changeset

Note as well that the forest service doc has trails that are being declared as no-longer maintained, but because I'm unaware of the validity of this in 2025, I am leaving them marked as operated by the Forest Service.

as well as https://arizona-content.usedirect.com/storage/Catalina-Trail-Map-2025.pdf