Actually I got curious to see how easy it would be to dig up the old GPS track and found it quickly! It does verify the path of those switchbacks that lines up with Bing and other imagery, so I'm going to set just that section back!

Ooh I've never messed with the 3D Elevation, I'll have to check it out! It's good to know you've been out there, my fear was you were some person in who knows where just doing everything on satellite and vibes haha

Specifically what caught my attention is the east entrance to La Tuna Canyon Park, which I had mapped with GPS and then was adjusted in this changeset, but after reading your message I put the GPS track back over it and I think the changes totally work and are an improvement!

While I was in Achavi tracking the changeset, though, I did notice the changes to the northwest end of La Tuna Canyon Trail - and the new path for the switchbacks there don't line up with any imagery I can find. I didn't adjust that trail after I hiked it (might have been before I was an OSM editor??) so I never uploaded my GPS track, but I can probably find it and upload if you'd like me to verify before adjusting it back

Hey there! I noticed on this changeset and a few other recent ones of yours in the area that there are trails being modified with a listed source of "aerial imagery" when the previous edits were made using in-person experience and GPS along with the aerial imagery. But some of the edits being made are in areas completely covered by trees with no path visible which would seem impossible by just satellite images - was tagging "aerial imagery" by itself a mistake and you actually hiked or biked these trails? If not, what's the reason for the edits?

Any luck with this?

Likewise, I'm sure you could guess my email in one try but...I'd prefer to keep the conversation public?
That's how this information can be referenced and shared and other folks can weigh in and whatnot. If you're thinking of sending screenshots, maybe imgur or something?

No rush! You saw how long it took me to get back to you! I had the thought about Wandrer making a change, and maybe they will have to - but I think, even if you're not getting credit for it, seeing the very occasional famously/recognizably named alley on the map makes sense and is helpful so if I were them I'd be reluctant to change things. Especially if it's just one area that's having the issue, and the cause is going against documentation (even if rightly so!).

That said, the dude who created Wandrer is WILDLY responsive and nice so I'm sure I could get a hold of him and get his thoughts if the conclusion is the names should stay!

Hm, I can't speak for CityStrides, but I can say that they definitely have a negative impact on Wandrer as alleys are not *counted* in Wandrer but are *rendered*, and now they're rendered with names that don't mean much (if anything) to 95+% of users - and sometimes those names appear first when zooming in instead of real neighboring street names.

Forgive me if this comes across as overly confrontational, but do you have links to any of those debates? I only ask because the standing documentation is *so* clear that the numbers belong in the ref= field, it's hard to accept "somebody who knows more than you said it should be the other way" without being able to read the arguments for myself, you know?

I say all this with all the respect for the work you're doing and with the friendliest of intentions. And oh man have I been sucked into a weird deep dive or two, especially detailing the new spreading grounds (speaking of waterways) and old landfills that have been (sometimes somewhat secretly!) converted to parks

Oh ok great, I kinda figured it had to be some source I couldn't access! I don't think I've changed or removed any since I wanted to ask first - except maybe one that was partially in a shopping center parking lot that I use a lot where I did a bunch of reorganizing?

Also while I was poking around into this wild world of OSM alleyways I did find that I think these alley numbers should be listed as reference codes with the tag ref= (i.e. ref=80875) instead of as osm.wiki/Tag:name=. I'm looking at the last bullet point at the end of the "Values" section on this page: name=*#Values .

I think the reasoning here is that when the alley has a name= tag, it appears in most renderings of the map and causes a lot of clutter and confusion. It seems some renderings know to prioritize displaying street names over alley names, but at least one I use does not so sometimes you have to zoom in further to get a street name than you do to get a neighboring alley name. That's actually how I realized all the alley names were relatively new. All of this explanation is to say: I can see you've put a ton of work into this so I don't want you to think I'm just here to be whiny and pedantic!

That said, I do think these should be tagged ref= (or perhaps loc_ref= ? see ref=* ). If you agree, I'm happy to help out in changing the tags in my area when I get the chance, and in the future whenever I encounter them!

Let me know what you think, and thanks for all your work - who better to have as a mapper than a location scout????

-Ray

Hi there! I'm just wondering what the source is for all these alley numbers - when I tried to look them up I couldn't find anything, and the LA City geohub has different numbers listed (for example, the alley between Laurelgrove and Saint Clair north of Archwood is labeled here as "Alley 80875" but in the database I found it is numbered 2322002501)

Aaaand now I've tweaked it once again! Hopefully this makes the most sense.

Ok I think I've fixed it! I deleted the little separate area from the relation with the Verdugo Mountains information tagged to it, and deleted the main area from the relation with no information tagged to it besides "scrub". Still have no idea why what I did made a second relation appear, but hopefully this is an elegant solution?

Whoa I.......don't know why that happened! I think the issue is that one section of the Verdugo Mountains Landuse=Scrub area was flimsily connected to the rest of it over a road, and I separated them when I created my new area which is adjacent to the sketchy one.
Once I saw that the sketchy area still became highlighted when I selected the Verdugo Mountains area, I was going to make the sketchy one into its own area...but then I said "nah better not mess with it in case you screw something up". Guess that'll teach me to always mess with everything! Haha. I'm gonna take a quick swing at fixing it but if it doesn't work and you can merge them that would be fantastic. I'll report back!

Hey there! The crossings you added where the trails on San Gorgonio cross into or out of the area above the treeline are not what "crossings" mean on OpenStreetMap. Crossings on OpenStreetMap are places where pedestrians can cross streets. In looking into this, I also can't find any reason why this area is a park or camping area - this area was created because it is above the treeline and therefore shouldn't be rendered on the map as trees. I can't find any evidence of "San Gorgonio Mountain Trail Camp" existing. As it seems you showed up 3 months ago, made a bunch of changes with no descriptions, received several comments that the changes were inaccurate, and have never responded or returned, I'm just going to revert these changes rather than wait for a response.

Look I really hope I never go hunting for a dam location again but hoo boy that site would have made it a lot simpler! All the coordinates provided by the City of Glendale I could find weren't precise enough and put the dam in people's houses haha. As for why I discovered that wayward point...did you know you can buy undeveloped land in Glendale and Shadow Hills and Tujunga, etc. for under $25k?? Maybe it's a good thing I don't have a job right now or I might own a useless hillside somewhere...

Yeah, it was very hard to resist the temptation of getting in there and mapping all the fields and figuring out which school was which and the like, but I've decided I have to focus up. My goal is ensuring every publicly accessible street and trail is correctly mapped and tagged, and I'm gonna have to leave some non-accessible stuff for others. I've got a long list of parks to get through and here's hoping I won't be unemployed and able to put in 8 hour days of mapping for much longer!

Good to know about the more general tag - anything that communicates "hey this open green space is not a park" does the trick for me!

No, there is no operator that I know of outside of maybe the Park Rangers themselves - it's just an unattended place to mount and dismount horses. I think this new tag I found (and have already applied) thanks to you is exactly what I was looking for: tourism=trail_riding_station

Found a potential workaround by accident today! So if you click the warning it automatically adds a ford, but if you just add the point yourself and connect the waterway and the road, OSM removes the warning without adding any kind of ford tag. I guess it just assumes that it's ok because the drain is intermittent? Or just that it's a very very minor waterway?

That little spot is an area designed for folks to mount/dismount their horses while riding on the Griffith Park bridle trails - it's got equipment for tying up horses and a few sets of small stairs and other things like that. I did a quick search at the time and couldn't find a better tag...but, well, after typing that up I just tried a little harder and found trail_riding_station! I'll change it.

Thanks for even more tools and tricks!

That app reveals what I was worried about, though - "ford" is barely used in the area. And these concrete v-shaped waterways are basically like glorified gutters most of the time I've seen them - they're more or less a part of the street. It's just in this particular weird case that the gutter leaves the street and goes through the median and then the park, which seems like it should be on the map...but calling driving over a small dip of a gutter a "ford" doesn't seem like a correct application of that tag, y'know? For example, my street in NoHo is basically designed to become a waterway when it rains, and has these kind of gutters on either side.
Yes, you have to drive over them if you're crossing my street, but putting two fords at every intersection would be wild, no?

Couldn't see more than the headline behind the paywall but I 100% getcha on the bike/horse rivalry. I seem to remember there not being any no-bikes signs until the pavement stops and it becomes very clearly a bridle path, but better to play it safe. Horses and pedestrians it is!