I do have a small comment on your changes - for the disc golf course, "landuse=recreation_ground" is more common than "leisure=recreation_ground", so I'd recommend changing back to "landuse=recreation_ground". If you'd like, you can also add the proposed feature "leisure=disc_golf_course". It hasn't been formally adopted, but is in fairly wide use in CO, and doesn't conflict with other tags, so is a safe add.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/70777874

Goodbye, Hughes Stadium!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/70777874

Hi, thanks for all your building additions! They will look better if you square them after drawing - it is the "q" shortcut in the iD editor.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/70822970

Hi, thanks for your update to the map - everything looks good. Since you requested a review, I have two small suggestions for improvement - on the Eby Creek addition, the Eagle River way accidentally got joined with a node to the Eby Creek Road bridge - usually these should only have a joining node if they are physically connected. In this case, you can right click on the joined node in iD, and select "Disconnect" to separate the node.

Second, on Beard Creek Trail, you'll notice a tag called "tiger:reviewed=no" which means no human has reviewed the road segment since it was originally imported. Since you took the time to review the road segment, and correct the geometry, you can remove the tiger:reviewed tag to indicate that you've taken care of it.

Thanks, and happy mapping.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/70207721

Hi Nullsoftx, thanks for improving the map. In rural areas like this the difference between "unclassified" and "tertiary" can be a bit blurry. We deal with this a lot in mapping Colorado as well, for the same reasons.

I'd recommend reading over the wiki page for highway=tertiary: highway=tertiary

The key takeaway of it, from my perspective, is that a tertiary road is one that you use to get between local destinations, or to get you over to a through highway. Tertiary roads can certainly be gravel or paved, it has more to do with how they are used.

If you were just dropped in the middle of nowhere out there, you'd probably get onto an unclassified road first, then a tertiary, then connect to a secondary or primary.

If a road doesn't connect two different places, it should probably be "unclassified". If it connects two places, but not much else, then maybe tertiary, and then secondary and primary have more clear definitions regarding how they are used as real through highways.

And as mentioned, take a look at the road naming conventions - "167TH RD" should be "167th Road" - it is easier for a computer to abbreviate than to un-abbreviate, so we give the full name when editing.

Enjoy, and thanks for continuing to work on the map, particularly in rural areas that need the help.

Hi, I reverted your addition of this park to the map, since it isn't really a park. Please remember that while Pokemon Go uses this map data, so do millions of other people around the world for navigation, emergency response, city planning, etc. Please only add things to the map that are real and verifiable.

Many Pokemon Go players do contribute useful information to the map - read here for some tips on how to do so: osm.wiki/Tips_for_new_(Pokemon_Go)_mappers

Hi Haprager, your addition is timely, it has been discussed a lot recently now that rendering was added for tribal boundaries. You may want to get on the OSM US slack, which has a channel #indian_reservations where interested parties are discussing the best way to get the US reservation boundaries updated.

You can request to join here (approved quickly): https://slack.openstreetmap.us/

Hi jwretlin, thanks for mapping. It doesn't look like you've done anything malicious, but you may want to take a bit more care in your edits - OSM has a lot of standards for how things are done to make sure the map data stays consistent for everyone. Here are a few tips:

- For roads that have a sidewalk along them, instead of changing the tag to "footway", which means it is only for pedestrians, you can add a tag of "sidewalk = both" meaning there is a sidewalk on both sides. This is in addition to the original "highway = residential" tag.
- For grassy areas, you can use "landuse = grass", but don't add "leisure = park" unless the area is specifically intended for recreation, and managed that way.
- For parks, make sure that it isn't just a "park-like area", but a real managed park for recreation. And if it is public, that should mean that literally anyone can show up there, not just residents. If it is private for residents you can add, "access = private" as a new tag.

And in general, be as precise as you can about your drawing of new features - it really does help. Thanks, and hope you don't take this as a discouragement from learning more and mapping more, it takes practice to make good updates.

Hi, welcome to OSM! Good edits on the golf courses, thanks for improving the map. If I could make a request, a more verbose changeset comment beyond just "." helps your fellow mappers check work, and make sense of the local change history. Thanks - phidauex
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/67785607

Hi, noticed your updates to these old arroyo roads. A useful tag is "highway=track" along with tracktype= and osm.wiki/Tag:smoothness=. The tracktype and smoothness tags let you indicate how soft the material is, and what type of vehicle would be needed to traverse it.

tracktype=*
smoothness=*
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/67605034

Hi, welcome to OSM! You may not have heard of it before, because it is usually used "in the background", but enables tools like Bing Maps, Apple Maps, Pokemon Go, Telenav car navigation, and many other services. It is 100% volunteer run, much like Wikipedia, so it is only volunteers like myself (and now you) who improve and correct the map.

The reason the road was passing through your property is because the US Census believed that at one time a road passed through there, connecting Lunns Store Road and Simpson Road. It is clear that no longer exists, so it is right to remove it. You can delete a feature by using the "delete" key after selecting the road. In this case I went in and cleaned things up for you, so it is all good now.

Good luck, and if you enjoyed improving the map there are surely many parts of the map of your local community that can be improved.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/67661701

Unsolicited recommendation: the "abandoned" prefix to the highway tag can be helpful for cases like this, since it will prevent the line from being rendered, but will still show up in the editor so that someone doesn't come along and just add it again.

A tag combo like, "abandoned:highway=track, access=no, note='in remediation, no access'" would prevent rendering, and inform mappers that the paths they are seeing aren't intended to stay there for long.

Once again it appears you are several steps ahead of me. The "word" right now for the ongoing DRCOG import is to simply not import that multi-part buildings for the moment. Someone is working on a auto-magic script to turn those multipart geometries into OSM-compliant 3D buildings, but in the meantime it has to be done manually.

I'll find the time to go through and correct the ones I imported and bring them up to current standards, referring to yours as examples. The good news is that the height values appear realistic, so the geometry should render well as a 3D building.

Oh, and one tip, you can remove the tag "construction = path" from the ways, because they are no longer in construction. You can also remove the larger area around the construction site that is tagged "landuse = construction", if the construction is complete. If the construction isn't quite done yet, you can leave the area.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/66377143

They got that open fast! Thanks for updating the map.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/66377143

Apologies for frustrating you. I agree that consistency is important, especially over time. I'm just watching and learning so I can best maintain the resources in my area.

From the Dept. of the Interior: "Wilderness areas can be part of national parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests or public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management." https://www.doi.gov/blog/americas-public-lands-explained

Unfortunately, that results in just an "it depends" answer - some wildernesses are part of and managed by a national park or forest, and others are not.

Thanks, I think I understand the technical implications in the data model now. I think the issue is really just one of semantic representation of the real world (which requires us to figure out what is going on there).

I don't think anyone would argue that if I was standing in Medicine Bow National Forest that I would be simultaneously "inside of" Medicine Bow, the State of Wyoming, and the United States of America, all at the same time. Likewise (insofar as US law is concerned), if you are standing in the Navajo Nation you are inside of the Navajo Nation, the state of Arizona, and the United States.

I suppose a quick way to find out would be to break a law in the Encampment River Wilderness Area and see how many organizations ticket you. ;)

I'll follow the discussions from the sidelines, and then can help with any required modifications in the mountain west.

I think I understand now, in that case, the Medicine Bow relation should indeed be "type=multipolygon" (I see Adam just changed it!). Clearly it worked both ways, but I suppose this is the better long-term path.

To the issue of "holes" for wilderness areas, I'd be interested in the consensus on that (and maybe an update to the wiki?). Medicine Bow has a few of those as well, in both "forms" of a complete "hole", as well as a "notch" cut out of the side.

Hi, I'm interested in this discussion because I've done some repairs to CO and WY national forests. I agree with the end result here, but I question the "type=multipolygon" part of the relation. I thought "type=boundary" was actually the newer standard, with "type=multipolygon" being deprecated for boundaries? osm.wiki/Relation:boundary