Already spoke with jnighan separately. We can bring him in if necessary - the main gist is that service roads are not to be used for through roads, as most routers will ignore them.

No - since they can be used as through roads, they should go back to unclassified road as they were before, otherwise routing will fail on them. (Most routers won't route over any kind of service road)

Why on earth have you changed all roads in Pachaug SP to emergency-access service roads? The public can drive on most of those roads - they're not just open to emergency vehicles!

Hey Russ - You need to call out the nature of the abandoned rr with the 'abandoned:railway' tag. I'm assuming the CPLCo was narrow gauge - so you'd tag 'abandoned:railway=narrow_gauge'.
Also - using the 'service' tag to note that it was a logging rr isn't the way to do that. I don't remember exactly, but there's a different tag, similar to specifying substance in a pipeline or storage tank. Definitely don't use 'service' though - that will cause all sorts of problems. Cheers...

Greg

Hey there, thanks for the input!
Yeah - undoubtedly those are not named by CT-DEEP, and are probably unsanctioned/informal trails. BUT since they haven't updated their own maps for 12-13 years (wtf?!?), and so far have been unresponsive in my attempts to get some clarification on a bunch of trail issues, I'm unable to come to any conclusion so far - so I didn't use osm.wiki/Tag:'loc-name=' as that is only used when you have more than one name for a trail. I don't suppose you have an in with someone over at CT-DEEP?
As for the naming of trails with relations, very few data users populate trail names from relations. In fact, of OSM's own renderings, ZERO of the 6 (well... 5... I'm not sure what's up with ÖPNVKarte - not certain it even works anymore) insert highway names from relations! As a result, all of the Pachaug, Nehantic and Quinebaug segments here are unlabeled on every downstream MaaS site that I know of (but if there's a data user that DOES render names from relations please let me know!)

As a result, the duplicity rule does not apply to highway relations as it does to water feature relations. If you have a wiki article you can point me to that says otherwise, please forward to me so I can set things straight!

Greatly appreciate the feedback though - especially since you're local! Do you know if there's a significant amount of xc skiing that goes on there in winter? Trying to decide whether to mark some of these trails for nordic ski access.

-Greg

Yahey! Love what you're doing with 1N languages in NWT!
Just so you know, you don't want to name a river area - the way representing the river takes the name only. Water polygons with a name will be rendered as if it's naming a lake: centered in the middle 1x. Just letting you know as I'm taking off river polygon names as I see them.
Mahsi’ !

Deleting all made-up roads and facilities.
Perhaps you should check out https://opengeofiction.net/

As much as I would love to see new railway construction - this is completely bogus, and I will be removing it completely.
OpenStreetMap is for mapping things that currently exist on the ground - not fantasy.

FYI - After this change, feature name became "Carbaugh Reservior;Carbaugh Reservoir"
I'm fixing, just wanted to let you know. :)

Use 'man_made=petroleum_well' and choose 'substance=gas'

An appropriate and FRIENDLY thing to do would have been to send me a message that our changes in Michaux were conflicting once you saw the conflict errors in this changeset

You could have at LEAST had the decency to warn me that we were editing in the same area! I'm tempted to revert this change since you stomped all over everything I was working on. Why shouldn't I?

Thx Andy - I was hoping you'd chime in on this. Would you consider this trail to be legit though, based on Bing imagery clearly showing the north side of the trail?

FYI - Don't put the trail number in the trail name tag. Trail number goes in the osm.wiki/Tag:'ref=' tag.

Got it - Fairangel Lakes, and the Fairangel Lakes Trail.
"Essentially a miniature version of the uber-popular Reed Lakes trail."
https://hikingalaska.net/2019/12/20/fairangel-lakes/

Reed Lakes Trail follows Reed Creek where Archangel Creek meets it to the East. Your trail is valid, but I don't know what it is or what those lakes are. Yet.

That's definitely not the Reed Lakes Trail, fyi

Hi there - just so you know, make sure you convert elevation data into meters!

@ZeLonewolf Ooookay - that's a new constriction I wasn't aware of. Or is that something you made up just now?
i.e. "You can't map from Strava unless you can see the trail or are performing a survey"

Ugh. So - the current ref tagging for forest ways is pure chaos, both on OSM and in the real world. The USFS has come forward and **appears** to have endorsed the usage of "FS" as a forest road prefix, and "TR" as a forest trail prefix.
The difference between the two is necessary because in some NFs/ranger districts the road and trail numbers are similar, and there's a need to separate out FS 350 from TR 350.
Some RDs on the IVM have even started adding the TR prefix to the trail numbers there, when they have a lot of trail number collision.
The main thing is that the NF prefix is to no longer be used - although it does appear that some RDs are purposefully still using it just to be rebellious. *sigh* Whatever.
I'm going to be initiating a change to the OSM wiki soon, detailing all of this, and encouraging mappers to climb on board.
Let me know your thoughts!