Hi, thanks for adding this! I just rode it and was about to add it when I noticed you had beat me by two hours. :)

I tweaked the geometry a bit from my GPX trace and added surface information and some details. Can you confirm if the trail is called Boulder Canyon Trail, not an extension of the Boulder Creek Trail?

Hi, for the First Look trail I used a combination of written descriptions of the trail in some of the CPW and TPL literature, and a blog post with some photos and trail descriptions. For the geometry, Strava heatmaps (which was probably the custom imagery in the source tag). It was enough for me to be >95% confident I was mapping the right trail.

Now, for the other trails and existing roads, I chose not to try mapping any for now… I know they are under active trail work, some are closed, some will probably be revegetated, etc… It might be worth the effort to trace some of the linework as private track roads, but it isn’t clear what will go away and what will become real trails yet. If CPW shared a map that would be helpful.

Thanks, we can see how that sits with people for now. The road is in a unique state because it has gained its importance to the network "accidentally" because of the amount of E/W traffic increasing in the last few years.

Do you know if "hgv=discouraged" is supported by any data consumers?

Hi, I see you upgraded County Road 50E (Country Club) from residential to secondary. While the traffic counts probably justify this, the community in the area has been working with the city to get some restrictions placed on the road (such as no trucks) because the road is being heavily used to bypass onto I25, and putting a lot of loud traffic into a residential neighborhood.

As a local compromise, we've been keeping it tagged as residential and reflecting other restrictions in order to prevent too much unintentional routing here until formal changes with the city can be determined. Do you mind changing 50E back to residential? Thanks - phidauex
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103955688

Reverted - a sampling of the changes showed all fantasy edits. If some are correct, they can't be easily separated from the known bad edits. mruss13 - please do not make false changes to the map - these maps are real maps used by delivery services, emergency services, and people living their lives. If you would like to contribute to the map, please spend some time exploring, and look for places in your neighborhood where you can make changes that improve the map or correct errors. Thanks.

Hi, thanks for your additions, I love these little neighborhood footways. As a tip, please connect the footway to the road on either end, rather than letting it "float", that lets pedestrian routers use the footway to suggest walking and connect to the sidewalks. Happy mapping!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/102148458

Hi, the service roads you added here were all demolished quite some time ago. Please be careful when adding MapWithAI features, and always check the latest imagery first (which in this area right now is Maxar Premium).
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/94716813

Hi, thanks for updating this new neighborhood. I see you used the "building=house" tag, but you drew the property lines. We don't typically map parcel boundaries, and the building tag is intended for the shape of the actual building. Can you update to an approximation of the actual building shape rather than the property lines? Thanks!

Hi Max, to be slightly more specific, I see that some of the changes are legitimate (such as removing leisure=park from Fort Robinson), but some of your changes have resulted in some major areas no longer being rendered, because they are using a protect class that is in transition. If you don't feel that a full revert is warranted, then please at least review your changes to make sure you aren't impacting local map users, and then participate in the discussion here: osm.wiki/United_States/Public_lands
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95815594

Hi Max, can I ask for your justification on these changes? Based on actual use, most of these areas are indeed either nature_reserve or recreation_ground (or both), and the current tagging scheme has been agreed to by local mappers to most accurately represent the use of these lands within the boundaries of OSM's tags.

I'd ask that you revert this change unless you've already discussed with other local mappers in a way I'm not aware of.

Hi, thanks for adding a lot of metadata on power plants in HI, however, the import seems to have caused some issues, too. Please inspect your additions and do a little clean-up, in particular there are plants added that aren't actually in operation yet, some untagged lines, and some plant names that might be incomplete. I'll try to fix a few, but you may want to look over the whole dataset.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/93317464

Hi JBH, thanks for working on the map, and I'm glad to see the city getting involved directly - accurate maps help everyone.

I think what the other user is asking for is that when objects exist in the map already, it is usually better to update that existing object with the new information, rather than deleting and creating a new object. OSM uses an object's "history" to track changes over time and is a powerful tool for quality control. Deleting and redrawing removes that useful history.

I also noticed that you abbreviated the names of the streets in a later change - the way you did it at first was actually correct! Computers are very good at abbreviating (Street -> St), but are bad at unabbreviating (St -> Street? Or Saint?), so the rule in OSM is to put in all street and address information unabbreviated, and then let the map rendering tools abbreviate as needed. osm.wiki/Naming_conventions

Thanks - happy mapping!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/91532289

Hi Jonathan - thanks for jumping into the mapping exercise, however you've made a few unintentional errors that need to be corrected.

First, I see you've made large square areas of grassland - the landuse tags are really only for areas carefully drawn to match the environment, rather than for a big grid square. Those should probably just be deleted.

I also noticed that you added a second creek on top of Elkhorn Creek. Since the creek was already mapped the additional linework isn't needed, so that can be deleted as well.

Let me know if you have any questions, thanks!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/90840297

If the trail goes up and down, then you can just omit the tag entirely. You could also then omit mtb:scale:uphill.

If a trail is directional, then there is a button on the way info to indicate "oneway", which adds the tag "oneway = yes". If the one-way arrows are pointing the wrong way, then next to the one-way button near the top there is a "reverse way" option. You can also right-click on a way and "Reverse" it there.

Hi, looks much better! I made a few small tweaks, which you can see in this history view: https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/836527871

TIP: To get to these history views, select a way or object in the iD editor, and hit "Shift-ctrl-H" or "Shift-Cmd-H" on a Mac, which will bring up a little history window. From there you can click links to see that object's history, information about the user, etc. Very handy.

I made a few minor changes:
- Changed incline to "up" instead of "yes", this means that, if you are riding in the direction of the arrows on the way, you are going "up". The tag can be left off for trails that equally go up and down.
- mtb:scale:uphill is an optional tag that says how hard it is to go up, if the trail does indeed go up.
- Description is more for other mappers than it is for the map - I simplified the text a bit.
- I also simplified the sport tag, while you can put anything in there, some tags are very rarely used and not very useful. In this case, cycling + mtb tags implies mountain biking, which is understood by the routing tools.

Keep up the good work editing, and don't hesitate to ask if you have questions. You can also join the OSM US Slack channel if you have quick questions on tagging or want another set of eyes on your edits: https://slack.openstreetmap.us/

Hi, if you'd prefer an example, here are some correctly tagged singletrack trails near me - note that they specifically indicate the allowed uses, have mtb:scale and mtb:scale:imba, which are similar but not always the same, and all of the trails are included in a relation which groups them as "Heil Valley Ranch" and as a route of type "mtb", which helps rendering on many maps.

Picture Rock Trail: way/219358384#map=14/40.1949/-105.2782&layers=N

Lichen Loop trail - foot traffic only: way/569766840

The mtb relation "wrapping" the trails. Relations are a more advanced editing tool, but you can use this example as a guide: relation/8409088#map=13/40.1731/-105.2855&layers=N

Hope that helps!

Hi folks, hope you don't mind another opinion. I've had to address issues like this a few times, and there are a lot of options for resolving them. In most cases I'm in favor of leaving the trails in place and simply tagging them correctly. However, I have enough wilderness management experience to know that sometimes a trail is just too attractive as a shortcut, and too damaging to the environment, and needs to be removed from the maps.

In those extreme cases I suggest leaving the geometry in place and changing the main tag to "disused:highway=path", then adding a note such as "note = These trails are closed for environmental restoration, please do not re-map despite visibility in the imagery."

That way the geometry is still there, and an extreme user like a SAR group can still look for all highways, regardless of the lifecycle prefix, but the majority of users will not see it anymore (I'm 99% sure that disused: suppresses rendering in Carto and the other major renderers, but that can be double-checked). The geometry also stays in OSM with the note, so a future well-intentioned mapper doesn't just add it back in again, defeating your efforts.

Would that be a palatable solution in this case?

Thanks for confirming! I tidied up a few of the nearby route relation connections so all should be good now. Happy riding!

And while I'm asking questions, is the cycleway next to the railroad line? Or is it on top of the railroad line? Aerial imagery is a bit unclear and I'm not from the area. If it is next to the railroad, then it is mapped correctly now, but if it is on top, as it is in many western rail trails, then we would want to merge the ways.

Hi, thanks for adding to the cycle network! The tag for a way that can be used for nordic skiing is "piste:type = nordic" - piste is a french word for ski path that found its way into OSM. No need to indicate that it is only valid during snow - presumably people won't try to ski on it in the summer, though it isn't illegal so they can certainly try.

I also noticed that some of the ways are named inconsistently, some are Downeast Sunrise Trail and some are Down East Sunrise Trail. Can you confirm which is correct, and then update the incorrect ones?

Thanks, and let us know if you have additional questions.