Oops. You're right, of course. I simply added the tagging to the wrong way.

(The sign has varied. Sometimes it's just been the regular Winnisook Club poster. And there have been hikers hassled by club members who don't know that it's a public road.)

The New York City DEP map at https://www.nyc.gov/assets/dep/downloads/pdf/recreation/area-maps/Angle_Fly.pdf shows this area as two separate properties with different ownership and access restrictions. The west one is owned by New York City Bureau of Water Supply, and the east one is Town of Somers. Should the boundary of 'Angle Fly Preserve' be adjusted so that it does not encompass the NYC 'Angle Fly Unit'?

Ok, I see Yankee Smith now, right where it should be. The incomplete and disconnected waterways confused me, and fixing that has been on my 'to do' list for years now.

USGS topos from different editions disagree on the 'Dutcher Creek' name. The innkeeper at Winter Clove, and the newer series of topos, call it 'Countryman Kill'. Not seeing that name also confused me.

Now I recall coming OUT from Little Stoppel down the Winter Clove Falls trail because nobody in the group wanted to push back through all that laurel, so we dropped off the ridge down to the Kiskatom as soon as we could. As I said, it's been a few years. I have no objection to leaving out the trail to Stoppel Point. DEC has obviously tried to suppress it.

Oops, you were editing multiples... I meant, the one that you marked "Winter Clove Falls Trail" is Yankee Smith. Also, we should tag `informal-yes` on the Winter Clove trails that are on state land and don't have state blazes, and probably warn about `trail_visibility` also. The last time I did Little Stoppel Point from the Escarpment, I very occasionally spotted a painted-out blaze where the grey-brown overlay that the state put on it was wearing to reveal the unauthorized paint underneath, and there was a lot of pushing through mountain laurel to follow the 'trail'. But that was a few years ago, and I know that a lot of the herd paths are getting much more beaten in.

Isn't this one named, "Yankee Smith Trail"?

I chose to include Haudenosaunee toponyms, where I had them, on places
enclosed by the Six Nations' land claims that remain alive in the
current era. Those include
relation/13737250 - where the Oneida
still retain a degree of sovereignty over any land to which they hold
title. (The 2013 settlement agreement is complex.)

Oneida is the only city or town of any size for which this might cause
confusion, I think, and I wouldn't kick too hard if you wanted to
downgrade `name` (as long as `name:one` is retained.)

The other communities that are affected either are Haudenosaunee
settlements (as with the bunch of hamlets that you'll see near
osm.org/#map=15/42.5344/-78.9940), communities
adjacent to the reservations that the nations specifically wanted
listed bilingually (e.g. Gowanda, Irving, Taylor Hollow, Versailles),
or communities that one of the nations owns outright. City of
Salamanca, for instance, despite being 90+% White, stands on land
owned by the Seneca nation - the residents are all renters! Given
that status, it's arguable that Onë꞉dagö꞉h _is_ the official name.

An increasing number of communities are starting to have their
Haudenosaunee names appear on the NY DOT signs, such as
https://image.advance.net/home/adv-media/width2048/img/newyorkupstatecom_national_desk_blog/photo/2016/10/24/seneca-signjpg-584c5b2882aa5f13.jpg
If the highway signs give "ohi꞉yoʾ" as the name of Town of Allegany,
that sounds fairly official to me. (But did they really need to
put it in Comic Sans?)

> Whilst it's OK to use multiple accounts (I use 4 for different things), it's only fair on other OSM contributors to edit the profile of each and make it clear that they're just a "sock puppet" of another user, so that people don't communicate with them thinking they are an unconnected user.

@SomeoneElse:
For what it's worth, the set of aliases that I and others found included:

AlexCleary, BrianDillman, BobKelly, JimTracy, JoelManagua, JOetlikers, JoseDeSilva, Nia-gara, NYbuildings, NorthFork, PeterKing, RI-Improve, RickMaldonado, RobertReynolds as well as miluethi.

The original user was less than forthcoming about these; most were discovered by the detective work of other users. I'm less than 100% confident that we caught them all, but I've got the scripts on [Github](https://github.com/kennykb/NYbuildings_repair) against the possibility of finding others.

In response to your message, I doublechecked the `ke9tv_NYbuildings_repair` user; whew! I didn't forget to link back to myself.

Would need three relations, one for each hamlet, and one for the Census Determined Place (because that's the one with a tabulated population, a FIPS code, and so on.) I'm happy to leave just the CDP boundary for now.

`building`=* goes on individual buildings, not on a lot that contains buildings.

way/1077506647 looks like an awfully large single building, and it overlaps Three MIle Harbor Road. Did you perhaps mean to tag this as `landuse=construction construction=residential` to show this is a plot of land being developed?

In the 'better late than never' department, I'm going through all of NY's municipal boundaries, comparing against TIGER/Line 2021 and NYSGIS Minor Civil Divisions. I'm finally getting down into the Five Towns (I'm a Five Towns native, so this area is familiar!)

This boundary should be tidied in changeset [122553998](https://osmcha.org/changesets/122553998/?)

Can we discuss this? I'd have appreciated a changeset comment rather than just a revert!

I'm having it hard to see how you could have made a change like this with only Bing as a source. You appear to be moving the boundary, for instance, close to the highway center line of Mineola Avenue. When I look at either the tax maps or the NYSGIS boundary data, I see the line following the right-of-way on the west side, which extends some fifty feet from the center, leaving Roslyn with the maintenance rather than Roslyn Estates. That does make the boundary cut through a few private houses near the corners, but that's not all that uncommon a thing to see. It means that the landowners at those corners will have their property taxes apportioned among the villages - that happens any time the boundary cuts through a lot and is very common.

II's popular to say and assume that the line between two villages on Long Island is a particular street, but it's actually commoner for it to be offset from the street - so the villages don't have to fight over who has to maintain it.

I see that you're local, so I'm not going to step on what you did. If you have better sources than I do, I want to know about them - NY boundaries have long been a horrible mess, and I'm making a systematic effort to get them cleaned up. I don't want us to be stepping on each other's feet!

Thanks for noticing this! The `hamlet;CDP` on the boundary was a
copy-and-paste problem - I wasn't intentionally updating `place`=*
on boundaries, only on the nodes.

As far as the choice of the `place`=* value, let me begin by observing
that this edit is part of a months-long systematic review of NY admin
boundaries against the authoritative data in NYSGIS (for counties,
towns, cities and villages), and the updated CDP boundaries in
TIGER/Line 2021. The chief focus is on correct topology (all boundaries
closed; no crossing boundaries; townships and counties share boundary ways,
etc.) and correct geometry (for instance, getting the line between
New York County and Bronx County to follow the former line of the
Spuyten Duyvil Kill correctly, rather than being glued to nearby streets).

In the course of doing that, missing associations between boundary and label,
missing town and village halls, and cross references to GNIS, FIPS code,
and NY statewide-information-system code (SWIS) are also being corrected,
and Wikidata/Wikipedia links are being verified.

The tagging is being made consistent. There has been off-and-on active
discussion over the last six months or so on Slack and on
talk-us-newyork about what correct tagging for some of these features
is, and I agree that what's being done doesn't quite align with the
current consensus. Nevertheless, the commenters seem to be willing to
accept my contention that 'wrong consistently' is the way to go for
the moment, allowing me to focus on the completeness of the
information and the accuracy of the geometry - which is entirely hard
enough!

Once there's a tagging consensus, and in another month or two when the
remaining boundaries are updated (there are just New York City and the
two Long Island counties left to finish) it will be easy to go back
with a mechanical edit and update things - removing `place`=* from
boundaries, tagging town halls as something other than the
`admin_centre` of the towns, respelling CDP as `census_determined` or
whatever. That will also let us sort out what should be retained if,
as here, a census-determined place and a township-decreed hamlet are
precisely coterminous.

Current practice is that it's OK to remove them, but it isn't necessary. I've been removing them whenever I have any other reason to edit a municipal boundary, but not seeking them out.

Lately I've been doing a comprehensive review of NY municipal boundaries, so I've been removing a lot of boundary tags on ways, but removing them wasn't the point - getting them correctly aligned was. As part of the process I've been correcting wrong admin_levels, making sure that everything has Wikipedia/Wikidata links, updating populations to the 2020 census, and so on, so there's a lot of retagging going on.

Changeset comment s/b Town of Stockport; hamlet/CDP of Stottville; Stottville needs conflation in Town of Greenport

Fixed.

The data source for building footprints that you cite covers only Lewis County (and does not have parallels for other counties in the state). Were you perhaps importing from https://cugir.library.cornell.edu/catalog.html?f%5Bdct_isPartOf_sm%5D%5B%5D=Microsoft+Building+Footprints&per_page=100&sort=score+desc%2C+dc_title_sort+asc or http://fidss.ciesin.columbia.edu/building_data_adaptation ?

No trouble at all - spiltting the relations was a two-minute job! I'll let you make the call on local land use - you have boots on the ground and I don't - Binghamton is a bit outside my usual range for mapping the details.

University and CDP are now separate multipolygons, so that satellite campuses, nature reserves and the like can be added to the university without affecting the CDP. Be careful with shared ways, and ask for help if you need it.

I can separate the Census-Determined Place into its own relation using the same boundary ways, which would mean that we won't collide if you want to change the definition of what the university includes. I'm in the middle of a few other things at the moment, but I'll do that today.

As far as what it ought to include, I'd recommend asking on the talk-us mailing list, or on Slack (osmus.slack.com) or Discord. I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other about satellite campuses. My inclination would be NOT to include the preserves, but simply identify using the `operator`=* tag that they are run by the university. They appear to be at least as much for resource protection and public recreation as they are for education and research. (I made the opposite determination for the Pack Demonstration Forest and some of the SUNY-ESF properties, which are primarily there to teach forestry, but it was a close call.) You'll find more diverse - and possibly better informed - opinions in the places I mentioned. Unlike the `tagging` mailing list, they're pretty friendly.