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!

Hey! Every time I've been to this section of trail, it's been open to at LEAST foot traffic, if not bike and horse traffic. I understand that there may be plans to make it lit and fancy like the rest of the bike trail, but for the time being it seems perfectly useable as a mixed-use trail. (And it seems like it's been waiting for the upgrade for over a decade so maybe they've abandoned the plans and just let the mixed-use trail stand?) I'll make sure to go back there and check the signage to confirm before changing anything since it's been a couple months, but I'd propose opening up the access tags to at least designated if that sounds ok to you?

Oh that Achavi thing is super neat, thank you! And yes, sorry, I conflated LA and LA county in my memory of when it became legal but fear not, I read all that mess about how all the different cities do it haha.

From the first link you sent it seems like if I move forward using the path tag but do my best to be specific about access tags, I should be in the clear? Seems like they're saying there is no consensus on good assumptions - so in my mind the answer is go literal: if it's not just for foot it's not a "footpath". Especially considering the default tags for "path" include bicycle=yes and for footpath they include bicycle=not specified.

Oh, and I'll try to do surface if it's super obvious but I haven't done much diving into the different surfaces yet so it seems daunting when I'm trying to get these paths constructed

Oh man, I definitely thought the greyed-out tags were essentially applied for most practical applications! Oops. The app I use that interacts with OSM uses the assumed tags in most cases and very specifically names the cases where it requires the tags to be actually set - I guess it's a little fancier than most? Seems strange to have the different types of paths with their default tags if the default tags aren't applied!

I've been going with a lot more highway=path (especially over highway=footpath) ever since I learned that LA changed the law to allow bikes on sidewalks and other traditional footpaths. It seems better to me to keep the delineation between a designed cycle-and-foot-path and a path where cycling is allowed but wasn't considered in building the path - and for the purposes of the app I'm using, highway=path will add it to the cycle map whereas highway=footpath won't. Then again, if I start taking the time to name specific permissions, I think that would probably overrule the filters for type of path.

In the case of the bridge and the path it connects to, as an example - it didn't show up for cycling in my app (or for walking, actually, due to one of the specific filters for random "highway=footpath"s), but if I'm correct it will once the map updates later this month. (I actually will learn quite a bit about how effective my editing has been after the next update - some of my work made it into the last one but the majority will hit this next one. Maybe the default tags don't work as I thought!)

As somebody who lived in Chicago for a decade, referring to it as a "not-growing urban population" is the most tactful way I've ever heard somebody say "nobody wants to live in Illinois anymore" 😂😂😂

I was about to do an edit on the track but since I see who made the most recent change I figured I should ask the master first! I was going to add the highway=path tag back in addition to the leisure=track tag a) so that it appears on the wandrer app as a valid footpath - wandrer doesn't include running tracks since I imagine most are not part of the network of paths and/or aren't that accessible, but this is more a dirt road in a park than that kind of track and b) because this wiki entry seems to say both should be used if I'm interpreting it correctly? leisure=track

Lemme know what you think!

I'm planning on scouting all these Whitnall Highway parks and other areas under the power lines and getting a good GPS trace since I seem to remember lots of unmapped paths from the last time I was in the area (before I edited OSM) and I'm not seeing them in the aerial imagery

Happy New Year! I'll delete tags on Sylvan and Bellingham - though I was wondering - on Bellingham north of Victory, there's a "no-left-turn" out of the former part of Valley Plaza that's now mostly a strip club. I tried to make Bellingham all one continuous feature like I did with Sylvan and it kept rejecting me, apparently because of that turn restriction. I removed the turn restriction and merged Bellingham into one street, then re-added the turn restriction......and it seems like it split the street in two again. Is this by design? Is there a better way?

Thanks, again, for all your help.

Hey thank you again for the tip! I'll realign the buildings I added and edited to match the surroundings. I kinda figured since they were added en masse they'd all have to be "fixed" at some point to match the satellite imagery and I was doing something helpful, but what you're saying makes perfect sense!

To that point - when I'm using GPX data from a hike/bike/etc that I did, I have been trusting the satellite imagery over my GPS when they don't exactly line up - is it better practice to go 100% with the GPS? Or to lean more toward the GPS? Is there a preferred non-default image source?

Apologies for the mistake! I think this was my first time changing anything anybody cares about instead of, like, the access tags on 5-foot-long pathways! I should have figured there was a reason it was the way it was. Before I went back to confirm the buildings were behind the gate and made this change, I had previously changed the pathways in that garden to access:private, is that ok? I'm new and coming from wandrer.earth, and the pathways in that garden are considered part of the total mileage of foot-accessible streets/paths in Toluca Lake, which makes completing Toluca Lake impossible without getting into Universal. Hopefully marking them as not public property was a better fix (and I should have quit while I was ahead)?