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.