Heya! Just a note: Don't use highway=track for through roads. Tracks are generally not routable, so if it's a primitive road that nonetheless can be used as a through route (and not a dead end) use an 'unclassified' tag. You might already know that, since this change is from 6 months ago, and if so - please ignore! Happy mapping!

Heya Kevin - Just an FYI, the upper limit of place=hamlet is generally considered to be 200-250 population. You've changed a lot of villages to hamlet which has made them effectively disappear from the map!

Thanks for the info - fixed!

Hey Nate! What press briefing? You didn't include a link. It's probable that they were just looking at a map, and not at an authoritative source. Look at the IVF or (better source) https://data-usfs.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/usfs::motor-vehicle-use-map-roads-feature-layer/explore?location=47.801812%2C-121.511026%2C14.00

Actually - the 6 rest areas I just looked at are completely bogus. I suspect that this whole changeset needs to be reverted.

@andrewsuzuki I don't recall what my rationale was - I believe I was looking at the Nepaug SF data in ArcGIS. Please change it back if that edit was incorrect.

@Glassman The mapper was trying to mark the trail as ATV-permitted. I'm fixing right now. The fords were duplicated many times as well.

@Glassman Actually, if you look at downstream data users almost ALL of them do not differentiate between a bridge over or culvert under. We of course need to strive for accuracy - and I do that to the best of my ability. The most important datapoint here is whether the waterway is forded or not.
If I'm on a track in the wilderness, I don't care if I'm on a bridge or going over a culvert - but I *do* care if I'm expected to wade into thigh-deep water!
Having said all that, USFS has clear procedures for commissioned forest roads - they are almost always culverted so they can easily rip out the culvert when they decommission. If you *expect* to see a culvert on an FSR, it's actually pretty easy to spot it!

@OrcaDan I get what you're saying about road accuracy, and I respect that, but the NHD is not well-known for accuracy either! Also, regarding your post-import work - what I'm seeing does not reflect your stated response. For instance, on a true residential (well-mapped) street in the Swakane area I see one creek/road intersection has a culvert, yet 2 others just down the street have nothing. It seems fairly random - is it automated in some way?
I'm partially annoyed because as soon as you plunked down those waterways over roads where I was last editor, it gave all of the resulting "non-intersection" Osmose errors to ME!
My other issue is that I'm taking part in a pilot project for the Trails Working Group, and of course one of the project areas is right smack in the middle of the waterway "densification" that you imported - so I'm unable to edit any waterways unless I want all of THOSE Osmose errors as well.
I'm getting through it though - so excuse my pique from the heat of the moment.

%$#%$@^&%$#!!! Must you add EVERY TINIEST waterway, while creating ZERO intersections with roads?!??
Seriously though. This is a mess.

Never mind - I fixed it myself

Ahoj! Jak se máš?
Always capitalize placenames. And Cherryville also has too many R's

You must mean the section alongside Lonesome Lake, since the rest of the Cascade Br Trail is the AT? So then it would follow that bikes and horses are not allowed at Lonesome Lake?

@Slickdog Which section specifically?

(I've fixed it.)

@Slickdog Thanks - I was going from the Forest Service data which showed that bikes and horses were "permitted"

@ Ignobilis Change it back - you know better since you're local. Include a link in changeset notes to any reference to the lake's name.

Привет - исправлю вашу поправку!
The lake is CALLED "No Name Lake".
https://edits.nationalmap.gov/apps/gaz-domestic/public/search/names/51618316-63a3-5698-aea9-b152bbcebd6f/summary
Thanks!

I had a tough time with the State Line Trail - it's supposed to be open to ATV's and I'd been told that ATV ways should be tracks and not paths. But I could see in aerial imagery that it looked very much like singletrack in places, even as it also looked like a 4x4 road in others.
If a track is "open to ATVs" but probably can't accommodate them, it should downgrade to a path, right?
I guess I was waiting for someone in the field to verify what's there - so change it how you see fit!

Please see comments for changeset/117373881.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117366407