That's great that you were able to get to the hill you remembered -- and even better that it led to some good updates to OSM! Sounds like we both enjoy the area, so maybe I'll see you out there!

Thanks for doing a survey and making some updates out by Ocotillo! Just FYI, there might be some differences of opinion about whether the gated roads going to the wind turbines are highway=service or highway=track. Personally, I'm fine with either one and I mostly leave the highway=* tags on these roads as I find them. But you may find that other mappers will switch the tags.

It doesn't seem like we're making progress on this discussion. So, what I plan to do is take out the bridges and restore the other ways and tags for the BLM routes and turbine spurs. If you don't agree with those changes or you would come back and undo them later, now is the time to speak up so we can get on the same page.

I'd like to continue the discussion here and on the other changesets where I've made comments, but I'm going to be out of touch for a few days. Please be patient if it takes me a while to respond to comments.

@dvlpmnt thanks for getting in touch. I noticed you've been doing a lot of work on mapping around energy infrastructure and that's a really great contribution to OSM!

I just think there was some confusion here and I think we can work it out.

If you're there in person, you can see that many of the spur roads have gates and the roads are signposted "Closed to Motorized Vehicles," which presumably means other than the maintenance staff. That's an important distinction because the signage does not otherwise restrict access. And whatever the site manager may say, this is still BLM land and it is open to foot travel or other forms of non-motorized travel.

So, the right way to handle this is to map the gates with "access=private" and tag the turbine spurs (and only the turbine spurs) with "motor_vehicle=private." Fortunately, that's something that most data consumers including routers should understand.

But there's also an important principle here. We're mapping what's on the ground, not mapping things that don't exist in the hopes of getting data consumers to behave a certain way. There aren't any signposted turn restrictions here, so we wouldn't map those. Likewise, there aren't any bridges.

Would you mind if I went back over the areas to take out the bridges and put in access tag where they might be missing?

The roads in this changeset do exist. The issues are likely a misunderstanding of the conditions on the ground and how to represent them in OSM. (And I'd blame some of the phantom bridges on overly aggressive validation in iD.)

I haven't checked other changesets by this user, but I did notice that they like to use some very recent imagery sources that have roads that don't show up on the typically older Bing/Esri/Maxar imagery.

If you have evidence of improper changesets even after considering the most recent Sentinel-2 imagery, I'd suggest that you comment on those changesets and follow up with DWG if you cannot resolve the issues.

It looks like we also have a difference of opinion about highway=track vs highway=service. Let's see if we can agree on how those tags should be used so we don't keep replacing each others' changes.

I left you some previous comments on changeset/170849953 and changeset/170849953. The issues in this changeset are mainly the same: disconnecting roads where they are connected and adding bridges where there are none. There seems to be a misunderstanding about how to map the access conditions for the spur roads that go to the wind turbines. Let's straighten that out. The "bridges" like way/1423130930 are another problem. I know the validator doesn't like it when highways and waterways cross, but there are no bridges here -- and the waterway isn't even accurately mapped. Let's agree on how to fix that too.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170643843

I have noticed some problems with your recent changesets in this area. I hope we can discuss the issues here and agree how to correct them.

In this changeset, way/1132279457 and way/914572163 were disconnected from way/10355033 -- in reality, these roads are connected.

And way/1423332338 was added with "bridge=yes" over way/689254659 -- there is no bridge here and these two roads are connected.

Likewise, way/1423332344 added a "bridge" over way/689254577 where again there is no bridge.

And way/689254577 and way/1108021256 were disconnected (although changeset/170849953 made two parallel roads here where there is only one road).

It looks like you're making these changes in an attempt to prevent access to the spur roads that lead to wind turbines. However, signage on the turbine spurs only says "Closed to motor vehicles" -- so motor_vehicle=private. There are no other restrictions on access or travel here, so travel by foot or non-motorized means is permitted.

Let's agree on how to correct this.

I have noticed some problems with your recent changesets in this area. I hope we can discuss the issues here and agree how to correct them.

In this changeset, way/689254577 was split, adding way/1423332341. Another new way/1423332340 was added parallel to these ways. There is only one dirt road here, so it should be mapped as a single element.

The geometry of the ways at node/6465957472 is broken, with a small spur extending from the intersection.

In addition, way/1423332342 tagged with bridge=yes was added. There is no bridge here.

Would you like to correct the issues with this changeset or would it be better if I reverted the changes?
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170849953

FWIW, it looks like that area is owned by The Nature Conservancy. It's possible they might allow public access.

Sounds like a good plan! Especially if you can check the GNIS coordinates and confirm there's nothing there. LMK how it goes and maybe we can make a case to USGS to update their data.

Local knowledge and firsthand experience is always the best! If you do update the location, we can try to let USGS know about it to update the GNIS data. They might accept our input but sometimes they like sources they can verify. But if it's a popular climbing route, there might be some web sites that mention it with coordinates.

(Moving the discussion to changeset comments so others can see it.)

Regarding changeset/144563499, on 2025-08-20 18:54:48 UTC Beakerboy wrote:

> You tagged a rock tower on the bank of the Kentucky River, at -84.6173,37.79381.
>
> Are you sure about the location? Satellite map is showing something that looks right at -84.620107, 37.794919

Hi! Thanks for following up on this! The coordinates came from GNIS (see https://edits.nationalmap.gov/apps/gaz-domestic/public/summary/2564699), which is not to say that they're exactly right. Sometimes GNIS is spot on, sometimes not.

In changeset/144563499, I was adding GNIS features that were missing from OSM. Where I could verify the location of the feature from aerial imagery or other sources, I adjusted the coordinates if necessary. I guess I wasn't able to find another definitive source to confirm the coordinates of this feature, so I just used the GNIS coordinates as they have them. In general, getting features like this into OSM is better even if they're not exactly right because then we can correct them like we're doing in this discussion.

As you mentioned, it looks like there's something at -84.620107, 37.794919. The question is whether that is the "Chimney Rock" or something else. I couldn't find anything in historical USGS Topo maps to answer the question. Do you have any other sources that we can use to confirm the location of the feature?

I don't know if your bot can spot this, but Native American reservations in both OSM and Wikidata commonly conflate the concept of people (i.e., Cahuilla Band of Indians) with tribal lands (i.e., Cahuilla Reservation). The bot fixed the redirect, but not the conflation. Maybe check if the Wikidata entry is an instance of Q7840353 or Q5398059?

It looks like some of these things were left over from some editing a few years ago. Would it be safe to delete them now?

Hey Habi! It's common practice "around here" to include tracktype on highways that are not paved, especially since there are plenty of "significant" highways that are just graded or unmaintained. Maybe a little different from Switzerland! I'll put the tag back. Glad you made it down the road in your RV!

Nice work on the alignment of Quackenbush Mine Road!

Hi! Could I ask what made you remove the tracktype=grade2 tag from Mosaic Canyon Road? Would you suggest a different value for that tag or was it correct?

I did notice the sign, although the fraction didn't catch my eye. I suppose Caltrans is just waiting until they have a reason to replace it.