Hi awohl, can you please respond to the concerns outlined at osm.wiki/Talk:Key:foot_traffic ? Your tag does not seem to be verifiable or quantifiable for mappers, and did not follow the tagging proposal process or receive any input from the community.

Can you elaborate what you mean by "2 track added"? No features were added here, and no tracks were touched at all.

Where did way/1265676282 come from? It looks like a classic ancient TIGER powerline except it is entirely new from this changeset. It doesn't exist on any imagery I have.

Most of these crossing were incorrectly edited, specifically the ones that are actual crossings on roads and not just parking lot entrances....

The Hellbender Bar node looks fine but the New Public House node (this changeset) doesn't have any descriptive tags, but has a wheelchair tag.

I haven't been there in a while so your survey is authoritative, but from their website it appears to still be operating.

If it's no longer a hotel, what is it? Appears to still serve food according to the website.

Hi BarnesMe, are you editing on behalf of the NC DOT? If so, please make sure to follow the guidelines for organized editing https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines

Hi __zach__, are you editing on behalf of the NC DOT? If so, please make sure to follow the guidelines for organized editing https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines

What is the actual source for these changes? I don't think you surveyed 30k points.

I'm also curious why the waterways that define many of these administrative boundaries aren't being used as the boundaries.

Are you able to provide sources for this or any of your other changes?

This one in particular appears to be copied from Google Maps. Aside from the coordinates the name, address, phone, and website values all follow GMaps formatting and not the formatting used on the company website.

Are you able to respond to this? You also never list sources for any of your other changes. I'm highly suspecting that much of this is copied from some unknown resource.

Oh awesome, I didn't know Madison Co had that resource! Great news.

Yeah for highway ref= tags, it (generally) needs to be a reference number that's signed and used for navigation. The secondary route numbers in NC aren't used this way (you never tell someone to turn right on SR 1411, you use the actual road name). There are a small handful of exceptions where highway exit signs actually use the SR number but I've only seen a couple out east. SR numbers also change at county borders or intersections, which makes them very unhelpful for navigation (they also can get updated over the years, which is annoying for us).

But they do exist and in many cases are physically marked (mostly with tiny white signs on stop sign poles, but they're starting to print them on street signs). Another alternative is osm.wiki/Tag:official_ref=, but this is for when there is a government reference number that's not really intended for public use and usually not signed. So unsigned_ref= is perfect: it's for reference numbers that may be consistently posted, but not prominently enough to be useful for navigation. The wiki page has some other examples for comparison unsigned_ref=*

Please stop using the ref= tag for secondary road numbers. They do not meet the requirements of ref= and *generally* should use the unsigned_ref= tag.

I'm also just curious, where are you getting your building addresses from? A source isn't listed on those changesets.

Do you remember where you sourced this change? It's definitely not a hotel, probably an Airbnb at best if not just someone's summer home.

What was the source for these changes? The Bank of NC has been a childcare facility for a while.

This is no longer a Krispy Kreme, but it's not Mr. Tire which is already added just north on 321.

Can I ask where you are sourcing these changes?

Most of these shouldn't even be crossings, and adding most of these tags is just redundant...

*Is it* no longer called "Mountaineer Dr" or *can it* no longer be called that? OSM only cares about the former.

Why did you remove the descriptive names? These full names are listed on the route schedules at https://www.appalcart.com/route-maps-and-schedules and probably also on the physical route pamphlet.

Please do not just add woods tags to the National Forest boundaries. Tags have actual meaning for things, and the ways that define the NF boundary do not define the edge of a wooded area.