The thing is that we don't map object that don't exist anymore. But it can still be added to https://openhistoricalmap.org/.

Hi and thanks for editing. The trail you edited though removed all remnants of the original railway. OSM keeps only features that still exist.

See more on the railway=abandoned wiki page railway=abandoned

Hi,
Thanks for your edits, but the railway in Waterbury is clearly not there when looking at the imagery.

Very nice! I like how this is shaping up

Hi and thanks for your edits. Just a reminder that name tag is not for leaving descriptive notes, but for an actual name of the object.
If you need help with which tags to use to describe certain properties feel free to ask or look at wiki.openstreetmap.org

Hi,
as a named road that leads to residential buildings, I'd say this falls right into definition of highway=residential.

Driveways are more those short stretches, which lead from this road to garages.

Thanks for link to the map.
There was a lengthy discussion about this topic on Slack a while ago that I just reviewed (https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C2VJAJCS0/p1615311712470100). It seems people mostly agreed that we put access=private when there is a gate or sign that says no trespassing.
There was suggestion that if there is no sign or gate we could place access=destination as alternative.

There was a link to interesting ruling (http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/court-rules-that-your-driveway-is-not-private-propertyunless-youre-rich?news=841368)
and in CT it should be fine to be there if you didn't know you shouldn't (https://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rpt/2002-r-0365.htm)

Hi,
thanks for contributing. Just a question, do you have an evidence that those residential streets has private access? Residential streets are generally public and if there is no trespassing sign it is legal to enter such road.

Hi Stefault,
just out of curiosity, what is the purpose of adding type=multipolygon to water areas? e.g. way/974767195

This is normally used on relation to denote that it is a multipolygon.

Hi, thanks for contributing! All your edits look good.
The only issue that I see is that the name=* tag is reserved for an actual object name, so "Latimer Lane Elementary School" is good, but descriptions like "Walking path to Clover Lane" should not be used.

Very nice job! Thanks
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111296778

This one is hard without an actual survey. Trees along Guigalá are too thick to see how wide the river is.

Since the nearby river Escarrea is wide enough to see that it is a wide river I would lean more towards classifying Guigalá as a stream, but that is hard with this type of imagery.

You are doing a great job!

If you want to make your life easier try editing with JOSM. It is not as easy to learn as iD, but has tons of useful functions and plugins and is way faster.

Particularly useful for landuse/landcover are:
* Improve way accuracy (for improving existing shapes)
* fastDraw (for quick drawing of curved shapes)
* Merge Contour
* Balloon (Shrinkwrap) for fast fill of areas

Hi Jack,
some of those shapes might need a bit of simplification to reduce the node count (but still preserve details)

There is a SimplifyArea plugin for JOSM that can be tuned well

Hi Sphilbrick,
thanks for adding tons of information.

Just a small thing, the name= tag is reserved for an actual name of the object and descriptive information is placed into separate tags.
e.g.
Private access => access=private

Information about trail routes is a bit more complicated, because it is stored inside relations
Blue Trail => color=blue
relation/12181034

I think Mundilfari here pretty much summed up my opinion on this topic.

But if anybody wants to bring this issue to attention of iD maintainers or propose a solution to type #1 and #2 cases please do so here
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/8590

OSM project is trying to capture all existing features regardless of who owns them. We tag them as private, but it is up to the data consumer how they handle these cases.

Even though some paths or roads can have restricted access they might be used in case of e.g. medical emergency or forest fire.

But I completely understand that it doesn't feel good when someone is watching your back yard for no good reason. In these cases I can recommend two things:
1) placing "no trespassing" signs at the entrance of the trails so people are aware that they shouldn't continue further.
2) Contacting the makers of Alltrails and ask them to remove or disable routing through paths marked as access=private and access=no. Many other apps handle these cases just fine and there is no reason why their app should send people wandering into private properties.

Here is their support page:
https://support.alltrails.com/hc/en-us/requests/new

The trails are correctly marked as access=private, which is the correct way of handling objects with restricted access.

@cmoffroad
with free projects it works as such that if you need something, you do it yourself or you go to someone who knows how to do it and you ask them nicely if they can do it for you: https://github.com/mapbox/osmcha-frontend/issues

IMO with words like "disrespecting" you are pulling a lot of assumptions about someone's motivation and giving too much credit to the importance of other people

@Lee Carré
Check those two links I posted above (they are from dev version of overpass run by user mmd). I use those for viewing large bbox changesets.
Generally algorithms should adapt to users' needs and help us work less not the other way around.

Also if people would have got out and do surveys, there would be barely 10% of the data we have in OSM today.