Hi,
Thank you for responding and explaining the situation. In general, things that don't exist yet shouldn't be in OSM and ought to be added as they are built. However, if you really want to tag the future routing, you can use highway=proposed + proposed=path. There isn't an editor preset for that (because the recommended course of action is to add things when they open), so you'd have to add the tags manually at the bottom of the toolbar on the left-hand side. If you know when the section is planned to be opened, you could also add the construction_end_expected=YYYY-MM-DD tag with an estimated date. In summary, portions of the Greenway that aren't developed yet should be tagged as either highway=proposed + proposed=path or just as an abandoned railway.

As for connecting the different segments into a kind of route, that is just what route relations are for. In the editor, you can select a way and hit the big plus button at the bottom of the left-hand toolbar in the relation section, then type in "new relation", and then a new preset selection will pop up to create a route relation. You could create a cycle route, walking route, or both. The route relation would have the name "Baboosic Greenway", and the individual segments can have their own name if they have one, or just be called "Baboosic Greenway" as well. You can take a look at the Concord-Lake Sunapee Rail Trail which is in a similar situation: relation/7300836. Doing it that way helps it show up nicely on renderers like Waymarked Trails (https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=12!43.2463!-71.6901).

As for marking missing bridges, you could tag the crossing as a ford. Or you could just leave a hole in the path. That approach will keep routers from suggesting that segment as a through-way, and it's a very good model of a missing bridge.

Please feel free to continue this thread if you have more questions or need help getting started :)

Hi,
Barnard Hill Road is a Class VI road in the town of Weare. From what I could find, Weare places no restrictions on motor vehicle access on Class VI roads besides in mud season, so motor_vehicle=agricultural is incorrect. There's also a sign at the north end visible in Bing street-level imagery that says that it is open to all vehicles at their own risk. You might be interested in width, surface, and smoothness tags to describe the accessibility of the roadway to motor vehicles.

Hi,
Mary Hadley Road and Melvin Valley Road are Class VI roads in the town of Weare. From what I could find, Weare places no restrictions on motor vehicle access on Class VI roads besides in mud season, so motor_vehicle=no is incorrect. Also there's a house on Mary Hadley Road. You might be interested in width, surface, and smoothness tags to describe the accessibility of the roadways to motor vehicles.

Hi,
I'm reviewing your changeset, as you requested, and I have some questions. It looks like a lot of the trail that you added hasn't been used yet, and the only reference to it that I can find is in the April 13th minutes of the Amherst Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee. I found a bunch of references to the B&M Trail, and the sum of them all made it seem like it wasn't developed except for a stretch between Walnut Hill Road and Dream Lake. I did see that the stretch north of Baboosic Lake is in the NHDOT's 10-year plan. So, was it built this winter then? Is all of this trail just super new? Or is it yet to be built? Also, did they build a bridge over the Baboosic Brook, or did they put the brook in a culvert?

Ah, the relation that I think you're thinking of is tagged with route=railway instead of route=foot;bicycle. I'll go ahead and fix that.

I swung by this area today to see what's up. The roadway has not been destroyed, and in fact it is signed for use by the public. There's a no motor vehicles sign on the north end, and the gate on the south end either has been removed or was swung out of view. So I am restoring the way that you deleted with tags based on what I surveyed. In the future, please only delete ways that do not exist in real life.

Hi,
I'm not sure what you mean by saying that Dearborn Road was never built. It clearly was, and it was discontinued. It's an old road from back when the whole land was cut down for meadows and farms. It was discontinued when there wasn't a traffic need for it anymore, but the old roadway still exists.

In New Hampshire, property owners have a lot of power over these roadways and can bar traffic to others, and, from the Bing streetside imagery, it looks like the landowner on the Stumpfield Road side has put up a gate and uses the roadway to access their fields. A road like that should be tagged as a track road with private access. I didn't see any barriers on the Moulton Ridge Road side, and since it is a popular trail, I'm guessing there aren't any. In New Hampshire, all land is open to the public unless explicitly disallowed via signage or enclosure, though landowners are allowed to shoo individuals away without prior warning.

I'm still hung up on you saying "this road does not exist". Does that mean that the landowner on the Moulton Ridge Road side has clear-cut the entrance? If the roadway still exists, it should be mapped as track road with appropriate access tags (likely permissive).

Hi,
This road was already tagged with private access. Tagging modes with no means that no one is allowed to go down there, not even the landowners and their guests.

Hi,
This road appears in aerial imagery, in streetview imagery, and on the Strava heatmap. What do you mean that there is no road there? Was the forest around it clear-cut over the winter?

Hi,
Why did you delete the route relation for the Concord-Lake Sunapee Trail? It was well-signed when I visited before winter.

Hi,
In the US, we generally don't tag isolated expressways like this as motorway unless they have 3 exits or more. Please see changeset/100516766 (which concerns one of your previous edits) and the thread following this https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2021-January/020837.html

Hi,
Welcome to OpenStreetMap, and thank you for your contributions! I reviewed your edits, as you requested, and I think that they're good. It looks like a nice place to go for a walk; I'll have to check it out sometime!
Happy Mapping,
aweech

Hi,
A few things about this edit. Firstly, you forgot to expand the abbreviations in the address. Secondly, you forgot to square the building's corners using the "q" keyboard shortcut. The vast majority of buildings, including this one, have corners at right angles. Thirdly, it is helpful to tag the business as an ATV rental place with shop=rental and either rental=atv or rental:atv=yes. Lastly, you said that the address is 99 South Main Street, but you put the building clear out on 300 East. The location data you were using is clearly incorrect. The business is visible in Mapillary imagery on Main Street, where it is expected from the address, so I moved the info over there.

Yes, Bing imagery is out of date, as it very often is. Esri, Mapbox, and Maxar imagery provide more up-to-date imagery.

I retagged it as a tourist attraction, which is somewhat generic but a form of correct. Adding the info to the hotel right there would have worked as well. As would creating a resort node.

Hi,
Welcome to OpenStreetMap, and thank you for your contributions! I reviewed your edit, as you requested, and I think that it's fine for the most part. There are a few things I'd like to point out though. Firstly, the sidewalk tag is only for paths directly beside a roadway. Secondly, you deleted a service road in the north parking lot, and, when you replaced it, you forgot to connect it to Stallion Way again. It's best practice to not delete things that are correct, but to modify them to make them better. Thirdly, you ignored a lot of warnings about connectivity. 22 in total! The warnings are there for a reason, and should not be ignored. Please connect ways that you create to the overall road network.

Hi,
This is an underground hot spring, not a building.

Hi,
This is literally someone's house, not a hotel. Red Rock Ranch is just across Spanish Valley Drive, and it is a horseback riding facility, not a hotel.

Hi,
The Riverside Inn changed its name to Gateway Inn years ago. Please check for changes like that before changing the names of businesses.

Hi,
You literally drew the hotel over a gas station. This hotel was already in OSM in its correct location. I removed the information you added to the bogus building on this gas station and added it to the real Recapture Lodge.