This seems to be a common issue: http://www.hb-studios.com/forum/index.php?topic=28253.0 (See especially the last post.)

So you'd need to import trees from some other source, apparently.

Can you link to the exact feature you're seeing problems on? Right-click on it and "query features", then click on the link in the left menu for the correct outlined feature.

I fixed up the tags on the wooded bits you added. I saw that you added 'surface=*' on them, which isn't something you would add to a forest. They should show correctly now (try ctrl+shift+r to refresh your browser cache; sometimes old tiles still show, and it takes some time to render too). Generally, the minimum you need is 'natural=wood'. You could add 'leaf_type=*' and 'leaf_cycle=*', but those aren't required.

If you haven't found it yet, check out osm.wiki/wiki. It will have all the tags you will need on any feature. Sometimes the in-browser editor is not clear about what some features are or what some tags would be useful/needed.

This course is tagged correctly, so you could compare to that: osm.org/#map=16/40.7870/-77.8806. Either go into the editor, or right-click and query specific features on the map itself.

And if you have any other tagging questions, feel free to ask (direct message works too)! OSM is a constant learning experience.

Very nice work you've done here! It looks like you've been experimenting with how to map the features. I think that you might want to remove `leisure=golf_course` from the holes, fairways, tees, and so on, just leaving the `golf`=* tags. That should remove the numerous golf point symbols from the map, but still be tagged appropriately.

1: JOSM user-error. Fixed.
2: I think so, based on https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/BwHaEe19zrQoXICnNTlabA (both signs are for Stapleton). I also didn't find any other businesses with an address search, but I'll swing by in person soon to check.

Good points, and things I did not consider. I guess it's hard to tell if it's the owner of the business (as the username could suggest either way), or an SEO company. I understand that at large scales, this would get very annoying...

I have reverted the revert and fixed the tags. The information was a bit spammy, sure, but I think it would have been better to leave it to be verified on the ground.

Nope, just fixing up Osmose errors. My bad if it goes against local custom. I thought (and I guess Osmose does too) that highway=footway makes it foot-allowed, and foot=designated is redundant. I can see highway=path, foot=designated as making more sense. I can revert if you'd like, though.

Thanks for updating the name of the hotel, but it looks like you used Bing imagery, which is pretty misaligned, and also lined it up with the roof, not the ground. I readjusted the position. This area has really good imagery under Mapbox Satellite, by the way.

I understand that they don't have descriptive tags. Can I suggest for National Forests, instead of landuse=forest, using boundary=protected_area? That's I think the least number of tags to add that would be accurate, but more can be found here if you'd like to supplement: osm.wiki/United_States/Public_lands#Agriculture_Department_.28USDA.29_National_Forests_.28USFS.29.2C_National_Grasslands.2C_Special_Biological_Areas.

As for deleting them "sometime in the future", I'm working on it. It's not just a matter of downloading and deleting the ways, because I want to make sure that they aren't breaking anything else if they're connected to something. I have removed 2/3 parts for Wayne. Allegheny is next.

No hard feelings!

I noticed that you added landuse=forest to a lot of National Forests. I know for a fact that for Wayne and Allegheny, this tag is incorrect. I recently changed the polygons of these two NFs to reflect the actual USFS land, not the proclamation boundaries (which are not the boundaries of the National Forests, but just boundaries where the NFs can acquire land). I have reversed these two NFs, but in future, can you check that the coverage of polygons is actually forest? Thanks!

I agree with your assessment of Middle Ridge/Trail of Doom. That segment of trail made some sense as ToD when Area 51 was there, but having ToD start arbitrarily at a switchback makes no sense. Thanks for keeping the relations cohesive!

Yep, as soon as I submitted them, I realized that it wasn't wise. My apologies.

No worries, but while it is a prison (amenity=prison), it is still a building, so it needs the building=yes tag. I guess you probably used the preset for prison?

When you're editing an object, if you scroll down to the bottom of the left sidebar, you can see the actual tags you're changing/adding, so you can get an idea of what's going on.

Also, if you haven't found it yet, osm.wiki/Main_Page has a lot of info about every tag. Apparently, amenity=prison is ideally a polygon of the land that the prison is taking up, not just a building, but I think it's fine this way too.

Hey, I see you're using Bing Aerial Imagery for your additions. For this area, I strongly recommend switching to Mapbox Satellite (in the Background Settings menu on the right in the editor). It's a lot higher resolution, and it's much more accurate in alignment, whereas Bing is off by 10-20 feet or more.

It's not so much the tagging as the drawing and aligning that kills my motivation.

Nice work! Those parking aisles can be really annoying to add...

Hi AParsley,

Great job on the additions. However, I noticed that it looks like you're using Bing Imagery as your background layer. That's pretty badly offset, and also not very sharp. I'd recommend using Mapbox Satellite. It aligns with GPS traces pretty well, much better than Bing.

I understand that it is not a public path. The fact remains that the path exists, and OSM is about mapping what is there, not what should be. The line should remain on the map as long as there is a path on the ground, and there are tags to add to it to make it clear that it is not public access. If access=private isn't enough, put on access=no. It would be the fault of a routing engine if it allows access through a road tagged that way, and I have yet to come across one that does route on a private road.

I would think that a person riding or hiking around here might see the path on the ground and see nothing on the map, assume it's okay to hike. So keeping it in the database with a clear tag stating it is not public would, I think, prevent careless trespassing.

If the path exists, it should be on the map, even if it's unsanctioned. It is not clear from external sources if it is private or not, so I'm not adding any access tags to it at this time, but I have surveyed this in the past, and the path exists.