Hi, are those segments of Grayville Road you marked private (for example, 492444880) really private? It seems to be within the state forest, and also highly trafficked on strava. There's a closely parallel unmapped driveway, perhaps you meant to tag that as private? Thanks.

Hi, you've converted an unpaved highway=service driveway into a highway=track. Just because it's unpaved doesn't mean it meets the track definition. Instead, it should remain as a highway=service with a surface=unpaved or more specific surface tag. Thanks.

Hi David, looks good. Some unsolicited tips: with parking lots, make sure to connect any paths/etc with the driveway/service road, otherwise routing apps won't be able to route to the trail. Also, I noticed a few ways weren't actually connected to other ways where it looks like you intended it to (for example, the service road to Church St, which I just fixed). I'm not sure if iD does this but in JOSM editor at least it will give you a warning before you upload with a node that close to another way as 90% of the time it's a mistake. -Andrew

Hi, just FYI you added motor_vehicle=designated on a number of power line tracks near Meshomasic, but I don't think that's quite right (access=*), since they are blocked off with gates from the residential roads. motor_vehicle=designated means accessible and legal for public motor vehicle traffic (plus signage saying so). Thanks.

Hi, thanks for adding surfaces. I noticed you added surface=gravel to a lot of tracks in Meshomaic. Do you know if these tracks would more accurately be described as surface=compacted? The history of surface=gravel is a little complicated (surface=gravel), previously meaning only large chunky gravel, but as of last year accepted to mean any size gravel. Anyway, from aerial it looks like a classic compacted road -- hard dirt road with some small loose gravel on top -- which would be the more accurate tag if it fits. Let me know, I can change them or you can. Thanks!

Shouldn't tag incorrectly to make openstreetmap-carto look a certain way, that's considered Tagging For The Renderer (osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer).
The page for tracktype (tracktype=*) suggests the tag primarily refers to surface firmness -- looking at the photo example table, pretty much all of them from grade1-grade5 are drivable. The named compacted roads at Cockaponset are probably best tagged as grade2 or grade3.
For drivability I would instead use the smoothness tag (smoothness=*), which "provides a classification scheme regarding the physical usability of a way for wheeled vehicles, particularly regarding surface regularity/flatness".

I believe tracktype=grade1 is only for paved surfaces

You've replaced a lot of driveways (highway=service) with highway=track, why? highway=service is the correct tagging, regardless of surface.

Is there any reason you changed Baldwin Drive from highway=pedestrian to highway=unclassified?

Hi, the wiki on tunnel=building_passage says not to add the layer tag for typical cases, as you did for way/115113505 (you added layer=-1). Just a heads up, I will revert.

Reverted most surface changes in #120483328 and #120484244.

Reverted most of the surface changes in #120485029 and #120501950. As mentioned in #111827104, you had overwritten a lot of surface=compacted (type of unpaved) roads as surface=unpaved. I had also created a few shorter <1000ft segments of surface=asphalt roads, usually close to intersections on roads that eventually turn unpaved, which you had marked as unpaved despite being paved.

I haven't done it before. I found this wiki page on reverting changes (osm.wiki/Change_rollback) semi-automatically, but it seems a little tricky.
I have lots of other work to do on these roads and in this area anyway (mostly alignment, so that my bike gps stops beeping telling me I'm off track!) so it really isn't a problem for me to revert them manually -- I just wanted to make we were on the same page :) Thanks

I use RideWithGPS as well. However, that would be considered "Tagging for the renderer" (see: osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer). You shouldn't decrease the quality of the source OpenStreetMap data just because one company isn't making use of a tag that has existed / been documented on the wiki since 2008, for your own purposes. Should have contacted RideWithGPS with a bug report instead -- isn't too surprising there was a bug since the feature is relatively new. I just tested it RideWithGPS and it seems to be correctly highlighting compacted roads as unpaved now anyways.
As for iD, it's a similar situation, just because it was monospace doesn't mean it isn't an accepted value -- compacted is one of the top ten values for surface on taginfo, as remarked in the pull request to make it a blue preset a few months ago (https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema/pull/242).

Hi, I noticed that you changed a number of the roads that I had already tagged as surface=compacted to surface=unpaved. compacted is already a specific type of unpaved road, whereas unpaved is the generic value, but a more specific value is preferred (see OSM wiki). Was this a mistake or did you mean to do this for some other reason? I just rode a few of them yesterday and I believe compacted is still the correct value for those at least. If it was a mistake I will revert these changes. Also, are you the same person as user "CBratina", because they were doing the exact same thing in the same area (tagging roads as unpaved that already had a specific value)?

Hi, it seems you overwrote a lot of roads I tagged as surface=compacted, which is a specific type of unpaved road, with surface=unpaved, which is the generic catch-all tag for unpaved roads (see OSM wiki)? Is this a mistake or have these roads really changed from compacted to something else?

Hi Mashin, sounds good. Yeah I've been working off the Strava heatmap a fair bit, and also off single activities I see on my Strava feed (including in the case of that particular way you linked). But yes, my MO until now has been to create existing trails regardless and let others come in with access tags if appropriate...including myself, because I would like to ground-truth many of these trails at some point, and having all the known trails on the map/routers regardless of status certainly helps with doing that in the smallest amount of time. I've been tempted to use access=unknown but I assume routers/tiles don't treat those any differently. Anyway, thanks for the note -- I'll refrain from adding trails that I don't know are legal!

Hey just a heads up, footway=crossing shouldn't be used on nodes. You put it on a few nodes where highway=crossing should have been used instead. I always forget which ones go where myself and have to look it up...

Hi Chris, do you think this segment of Power Cut Road would be better tagged as access:permissive? I don't know what the official stance is, but the strava heatmap suggests it's pretty well travelled. There's a blue-blazed trail that starts at the southern tip of it and runs parallel to it, it's a little overgrown right now. But the existence of that trail and it ending ~half-way up Power Cut Road seems to suggest that access is at least permissive. Let me know what you think.

Interesting, what does -1 mean?