Nothing wrong with leaving the name field blank if a road has no name. Are any motor vehicles ever allowed on these service roads? Authorized vehicles only perhaps? Sounds like these roads might not be plowed in winter? In that case winter_service=no would make sense too winter_service=*

Thanks for improving the Smuggs trail network! Looks like you could bump the 'piste:difficulty' up to 'freeride', the next level beyond expert.
piste:difficulty=*
That would be better than having the diamonds in the name. You can see how that ends up looking a little weird on OpenSnowMap for example.
http://www.opensnowmap.org/?zoom=17&lat=44.56481&lon=-72.76233&layers=snowbase&marker=false

I haven't skied this particular run, but it looks like it's tree skiing so adding 'gladed=yes' would be good too.
osm.wiki/Piste_Maps#Other_features

Feel free to join other mappers in the region on the OSM slack. Great place to ask questions. https://slack.openstreetmap.us/

Seems like this should get put back. Looks like a rugby pitch and parking to me. Still under construction in Bing imagery.

Apologies! I assumed changing it to a gas pipeline was a mistake since the changeset comments didn't say anything about pipelines and it doesn't connect to a greater pipeline network.

If the trail doesn't physically exist anymore you can just delete the way (unless you feel that documenting the pipeline is important). If the trail is still there but only for use by the property owners you can tag it with "access=private". That means the general public is not allowed.

Feel free to join the OpenStreetMap slack https://slack.openstreetmap.us/. Lots of friendly folks there available to answer questions.

AllTrails is generally very bad about updating their data, unfortunately. You may have to contact them directly.

It looks like you've already changed the way in question from a footway to an underground gas pipeline which doesn't make much sense: way/641239652/history

Thanks for updating the preserve boundary! Has WVPD actually changed the name to "Derway Island Nature Preserve and Derway Cove" though? Their website still has it named "Derway Island Nature Preserve".

The presence of a driveway and buildings here is a matter of public record and it is not an invasion of privacy to record these facts. Your privacy is respected by the access=private tag on the driveway.

Thanks for making this change. I read about the purchase when I added the Derway Island Nature Preserve a couple months ago but wasn't sure about the status of things since I haven't been there on the ground. Would it be appropriate to extend protected_area boundary to include this new parcel as well?
way/886584980

It doesn't matter if in French the word footway is more accurate for hiking path. In the United States OSM mapping community the tag "highway=path" is more accurate for hiking path. The definition of the OSM tag is not the same as the definition of the word in French or in English. As you are mapping an area in the United States, please follow our conventions.

If you insist on using "highway=footway", please add appropriate surface (unpaved, gravel, dirt, ground, etc), smoothness, and sac_scale tags so it is clear these are not smooth paved walking paths. Or you can simply, leave them as 'highway=path' which would be much easier for everyone.

The tag 'highway=path' is more appropriate for hiking trails like this, while 'highway=footway' is more appropriate for paved sidewalks or other urban style paths. It was already clear that pedestrians are allowed on these trails due to the 'foot=yes' tag. This could be changed to 'foot=designated' to clarify that the trails are primarily or only for pedestrians.

If 'highway=footway' is used for a hiking trail it needs to be combined with 'surface', 'smoothness', and perhaps 'sac_scale' to clarify that the path is not a smooth, paved, urban style. Using 'highway=path' + 'foot=designated' implies a generic unpaved path for pedestrians so these extra tags are less important. That is why it is preferred for hiking trails.

highway=path
highway=footway
surface=*
smoothness=*
sac_scale=*
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/99614179

Thank you!

"Private Property" is not a name and does not belong in the name field. "access=private" is the correct tag and was already present on these trails. It looks like you've also incorrectly changed a private road leading to some houses into a footpath. Rather than correcting errors, this changeset introduces them. Please fix.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/99611798

I believe this change should be reverted. A paved road is visible on the NAIP imagery (the newest in this area), not a dirt track. Looks like a new development is being build.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/99511736

Oops. Meant to set the source as this news article, not Esri Wordl Imagery:
https://www.mynbc5.com/article/wreckage-of-burned-covered-bridge-removed-from-vermont-river/35490019

Yes that certainly is possible, but the issue here is not with the actual changes you are making, rather how you are going about it. This changeset and your first one only deletes existing data. Although it appears you replaced everything with more accurate traces, mass deleting and replacing in this way is not appreciated by other mappers. Instead you should modify the existing objects so that their history is maintained. Then when you save you work it is clear to other mappers that you have improved existing features. Instead we see mass deletions that look like map vandalism.

looks good to me. thanks
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/97988840

Hey, thanks for improving this. very detailed. looks great!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/97998529

Excellent. Looks like now that OSRM has updated its happily routing bicycle traffic on route 2. I took care of the next section across the river in VT too.
changeset/97139420

Hi CBratina,
I certainly see the value of cycling maps distinguishing between dirt and paved. I'm not aware of any base map layers rendered from OSM data that currently do this though. The maintainers of the standard layer (https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto) probably wouldn't be interested in adding that level of detail, but for a cycling specific map it could make a lot of sense if enough roads have surface type specified.

I just did a search and found gravelmap.com which shows an overlay of dirt and gravel roads generated from OSM data. In your area of interest it looks like this Webster Road is highlighted as a dirt surface, but the White Road you mentioned is not. Either because it's tagged as an off road track or because it lacks a surface tag depending on how they are using the data.
https://gravelmap.com/#12.52/41.71135/-73.16621

Have a good one, Zeke.

Hi, thanks for the edits! One small request, if you could try to remember to save changes before moving to a new area, other mappers will thank you. Because this changeset includes edits both in England and southern California, the bounding box is very large and it's somewhat difficult to tell what was actually changed. Thanks, and have a good one.