Hi, thanks for your contribution to the map! I had a few tips for you - the first is that your roads don't connect to the other nearby roads. Please connect them where the actual road connects. If there is a barrier there, then select the node where the barrier is and tag it as a "gate" or other barrier type. Second, I noticed you deleted the old road and redrew it. In OSM, the "history" of an object is important for auditing the map quality, it is usually better to modify the old object, rather than delete and re-draw. Thanks, phidauex.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/85951440

Another option for dealing with trails that are being revegetated would be to use the lifecycle prefix, "demolished:highway=path", which will stop it from rendering on the map, but will still show up in the map editor so that another mapper doesn't inadvertently add it again.

This doesn't work well for trails that are "real", and people just aren't supposed to be there, but is a good solution for trails that the park is actively removing and revegetating.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/86017235

As a CO resident I would agree that most of these would qualify as residential. Roads should be tagged based primarily on their use, and how they are used by the community, and less on their physical characteristics. This is why you have highways in Western Africa tagged as a "primary" highway when they would barely qualify as a "track" in some communities - but since they are used as a primary highway by the community, that is how they are tagged. Surface and smoothness tags can expand on the physical nature of the highway.

If you haven't been to CO, you might be surprised at how rural it can be - nothing in Europe really compares.

It could be an existing issue, but I haven't seen this particular problem in the TIGER set before. Whatever is going on is easier to see here: https://osmcha.org/changesets/83440452/

What it looks like is that perhaps the lines have been "closed" into areas so there is a long straight section? I haven't rolled the history back any further.

Hi, I'm not sure what you are doing here, but it is creating a lot of very long straight sections and overlapping highways. Can you take a look and fix whatever has gone wrong here?

Right from the horse's mouth! Thanks for the contributions. One tip is that this is a good time to use the "old_name" or "alt_name" tag for the original name. That will allow it to show in searches if some businesses are still using the old name on their materials (it will probably take a while for it to fade out), and also informs other mappers if they come through and aren't aware of the change (who might then incorrectly change it back to W 50th).

Hi, I suspect you didn't mean to drop this "landuse=yes" area here - I'm not sure what it is, but you can probably update it: way/802991620/history
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/85092747

Though yes, it does look like it should be Schuster with a "c": http://www.cityofloveland.org/home/showdocument?id=49512

Well, google maps alone is not a good source, for one thing the license prevents us from copying data over, even if it appears factual (there are errors in google maps too). Fortunately in this case the name Schuster Lake is used quite a bit by the city, and in permit applications in the area, and it is the name of the associated subdivision, so while I'm not sure how often people use it day-to-day, it does seem to be clearly named Schuster Lake.

Hi, thanks for your contributions to the map. Is the road you deleted truly gone? IE, not there anymore at all? If not, then being tagged "highway = track" is appropriate, because that is for unmaintained agricultural and forest roads. If the road is present, but you couldn't drive a 4wd vehicle down it, then it could be downgraded to highway = path. Usually if something is present on the ground it shouldn't be deleted from the map, just adjusted to accurate tagging.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84915656

Hi, the road you removed was tagged "highway = service" and "service = driveway" which means it is a driveway - these are used by delivery services and emergency services for figuring out access to homes, can you please restore it? Thanks!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84915447

Thanks for your additions, but I think you made these off of old imagery - in this area Mapbox and Esri Clarity are over 10 years old now, even though they look nice. Check the area again with Maxar or Bing, you'll see the parking and sidewalk areas have been reconfigured quite a bit. Thanks!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84926939

State laws usually give school administrators wide authority to restrict access to the school grounds and roads, and violating those restrictions can be considered trespassing, even though the property is publicly owned. Some more info here: https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/access-public-property

"Private" probably works pretty well for the road classification, but if you want something more general, "destination" restricts routing to someone who is actually going to that location.

Nothing to be sorry about, thanks for your addition to the map! Just wanted to let you know about the other effort in case you are interested in participating. Happy mapping.

Hi, before adding more buildings using this method you may want to look into the ongoing Denver building and address import project that is currently in progress and covers this area of Denver. The building trace quality is much higher than mapwithai, and it includes full address data.

Information on the import and how to participate if you'd like is here: osm.wiki/Denver_Planimetrics_Import

And we also discuss in the #local-colorado channel of the OSM-US slack.

Thanks!

Sorry, no questions, but I can see how you read it! I was just adding that, given the situation, I think the extra "closed" text indicators in the name field, while a bit unconventional, are an OK way of communicating what is going on with the construction, given the complexity of the project. All good!

Given the complexity of the changes I think a little extra verbosity is warranted here, just my two cents.

You are right that sidewalks are a bit of an odd case, many times with "routable" features you have to make some compromises between "drawing a picture of the world" and "representing the logical relationship between routable roads, paths and other features.

You can do it two ways - a totally acceptable one is to just continue the sidewalk and make sure there is an intersection node with the road.

To expand on that you could then tag that node as a "Marked Crossing" or "Unmarked Crossing".

Finally, you can make a short connector where the whole connector is tagged as "Marked Crossing" or "Unmarked Crossing". I added a few of these around the View Point Road/Bear Mountain Driver intersection so you can see what I mean. Hope that helps!

Hi, good work on all the sidewalk additions! If I can make a request, please link the sidewalks to the rest of the network by connecting them to the roads at both formal and informal crossing areas. Right now the sidewalks are "floating" and therefore unusable for pedestrian routing engines. Thanks - phidauex
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84296091

Hi, with leisure=common being deprecated, a lot of folks have been trying to figure out what the best tagging is. In CO we are using "leisure=recreation_ground" when the area is used for paths and walking dogs and the like, but isn't a developed "park" in the municipal sense.

"landuse=grass" may also be useful if the area has grass, but isn't otherwise developed for light recreation (no paths, for instance).