Hi tmerc58,

In this change
Set it looks like you tagged the name to Prouts pond. I recently came across a few locals (ice skating group I’m a member of) who refer to the water a bit further north off Pleasant Hill Road with name=Borrow Pit as Prouts Pond instead. I could not find anything definitive in either case (gnis, tax maps).

I was curious if you knew of something more definitive or have better local knowledge to say which is the real Prouts Pond (or both.)

Thanks
scarapella

Hello,

First, thank you for correcting my typos. That is embarrassingly common problem for me, and I'm always appreciative of the help cleaning up after my mistakes.

As well thanks for the thoughtful response. The intent behind the tagging of specific access points is to indicate places I know personally or through other nordic/wild skaters are used for ice skating specifically.

I chose ice_skates=yes (and try to spell it correctly...) to be consistent with some of the more recent trail mapping conventions I'm used to mapping (typically canoeing in my case).

To take the canoeing example, all waterways are in theory possible to canoe unless specifically banned or impossible (and those should be access|boat|canoe=no ). Putting canoe=yes on a waterway (or an access_point|slipway) indicate that a waterway is known good for canoeing. As visualized here:
https://opentrailmap.us/#map=5.19/50.839/9.523&mode=canoe&selected=way/1381119699

It follows that those where canoeing is specifically cultivated (e.g. those part of a route=canoe relation) would be canoe=designated.

When I looked to start tagging ice skating locations, I found that the same conventions were already used on with ice_skates=yes being used on waterways to indicate skating was specifically allowed (in addition to piste:type tagging). So I chose to go with ice_skates=yes on access points that are known good for ice skating and ice_skating=designated on those specifically designed to attract ice skaters (of which I only know one so far.)

In summary (after a far too long comment). I tried to stick with an existing convention already found for wild ice_skating that is compatible with conventions for other outdoor activities.

Cheers,
scarapella

P.S. I took care of adding back the ice_skates=yes and left your addition of sport=ice_skating in place.

Hi meuchel,

Thank you for all your contributions to openstreetmap and a Merry Christmas to you (should you choose to celebrate it.)

I saw you made a few changes to waterway=access_points and leisure=slipways from the ice_skating access tag ice_skates=yes
ice_skates=*

to the sport tag sport=ice_skating
sport=ice_skating

The choice of ice_skates=yes on my part was intentional to indicate positive access and be consistent with tagging for canoe, boat, etc. on the access points and slipways. In my opinion the ice_skates access tag is relevant and should be retained. I hadn't chosen sport=ice_skating since I felt that it was used more in the spirit of distinguishing between the usage of different types of leisure=*. However, it's certainly not inappropriate and if it helps someone, that's great.

I'm very happy to hear your opinion as well.

Cheers,
scarapella

I was curious about the relative use of the different canoe portage conventions, so I did a little digging.

There are currently 88 waterways with canoe=portage
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2hCX
and 1289 highways with canoe=portage.
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2hD0

Looking at the cases where we have a waterway with canoe=portage within 100 meters of a highway with the same, we have 28 instances
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2hCZ

Waterways with canoe=no are quite common (which is expected) with 14194 instances worldwide. However, this is meaningless unless we look if they are nearby portages.
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2hD3

So first looking at the highways with portage=yes|designated, we have 6903 worldwide.
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2hD4

Now combining the two, we have ~828 waterways with canoe=no within 100 meters of a highway with portage=yes|designated
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2hDk
NB: I had to break this down into several queries as overpass-turbo would not return the worldwide result and I might ahve missed a few.

I also checked for cases of mixed conventions, but I did not find any cases where there was waterway with canoe=portage within 100 meters of a highway with portage=yes|designated.
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2hDl

At a minimum I believe we can say that both conventions exist in practice. :-)

Hello,

As promised, reverted this and related via 176224616, 176224548, 176224533, 176224460, 176224449, 176224433, 176224411, 176224354.

As I mentioned above, the updates on the ice_skates tags was purely an error on my side. Thank you for pointing out my error.

As for the canoe tags, I'm happy to revert them here as the convention is totally valid and I appreciate your reminder.

-scarapella

Hi JorenHoek,

My intention was certainly not to do anything unilateral. So I'm very happy you brought this to my attention so we can discuss.

Here we are talking about two different tags on the waterway ice_skates=kluning and canoe=portage.

For the canoe=portage I think the issue comes from inconsistent documentation/conventions. The convention I am very familiar with is where waterways are marked as canoe=no where you must portage and the portage trail itself is documented by portage=yes (canoe=portage on the way used to be a common convention but in my experience is much less used and the portage access tag is clearer). This is consistent with the documentation on the canoe tag
canoe=*
and the portage tag
portage=*

You are totally correct that this is inconsistent with the canoe=portage documentation.

As for ice_skates=kluning discussion, the convention and documentation is more clear, and made a mistake. While the documentation here is ambigious
ice_skates=*

the use of ice_skates=kluning on a waterway to say you must detour is clear here
ice_skates=kluning
and therefore the fault is purely mine.

I'll be happy to revert (may take me a bit) , but I'm curios to have your opinion on the right convention. To me the use of a an access tag to mean both the way you should go and the way you should NOT go depending on the type of way is not super straight forward.

I've implemented my proposed changes rollback through changesets: 172314558 and 172314390.

Hello again,

I propose to do a partial, manual rollback of this changest to return the rapids tagging to be in line with the guidelines and practices stated above. Namely removing the name from the natural=water + water=river area as it already exists on the waterway=river and breaking the natural=water + water=river multi-polygon into more manageable chunks.

Cheers,
scarapella

Hello again,

I propose to do a partial, manual rollback of this changest to return the rapids tagging to be in line with the guidelines and practices stated above.

Cheers,
Sean

Hello Dartmouthmapmaker,

Thank you for your contributions to openstreetmap.

I noticed that i this changeset you added the name to the natural=water + water-river relation for the saint john relation/18254505 and tobique rivers relation/6376043

According to the english and french wiki articles
water=river

osm.wiki/FR:Tag:water%3Driver

the names should remain only on the waterway=river.

I propose then to revert this part of the changes.

As side note, maintaining giant multipolygon relations such as you've created is tough, and not necessary. In some cases (like naming of rapids) it can even be impossible and may also be counter productive for performance as to render a small area the maps may have to retrieve data from very far afield.

Cheers,
Sean

Hello Dartmouthmapmaker,

Thank you for your many contributions to openstreetmap. I noticed some collateral changes to some rapids in this changeset I wanted to discuss.

Taking for example Priestly Rapids:
way/1347779147#map=16/46.85657/-69.51465

Previously:
* the way was tagged as a waterway=river+rapids=yes
** with the name= as the name of the river
* the way was surrounded by an area natural=water+water=rapids https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/1215586313
**with the name= of the area being the name of the rapids
*the way is in included in the river relation relation/9723202

After this changeset:
* the way is changed from waterway=river+rapids=yes to waterway=rapids+rapids=yes
**with the name= changed to the the name of the rapids
* the area surrounding the way tagging changed from natural=water+water=rapids to natural=water
** the way is still included in the river relation relation/9723202

Based on both the conventions I've seen in most places and the english wiki documentation waterway=rapids I think the original tagging was more correct.

I also don't almost no use of of waterway=rapids as the way tagging for section of rivers with rapids in the current OSM dataset (at least where I checked in NE US + eastern canada). While there is/was some small usage of waterway=rapids to tag the centerline of rapids, it every example I found was in ADDITION to the waterway=river tagging (in alignment with the old, pre-2024 english wiki guidelines osm.wiki/w/index.php?title=Tag:waterway%3Drapids&oldid=2618064 )

cheers,
scarapella

Hi dkwolf,

Thanks for all your contributions to openstreetmap and for cleaning up the nature reserve in the downeast lakes. I just some small a questions around changes you made to the access to Sysladobsis Lake.

You shortened the access path
way/1214576447

removed the access point
node/1171507186

and deleted the waterway link
way/1214576448

Last time I was here, that point was a legitimate hand carry access site. Did something change in the area I'm not aware of? Last I heard via email from DLLT they anticipated buying the property and guaranteeing public
https://downeastlakes.org/who-we-are/big-sand-beach-campaign/

Anyway, let me know if it was intentional or just something that got caught up in a big changset accidentally.

cheers,
scarapella

Tes, tou are righy. Yhay was a ytpo!

Thank you for pointing it out. Fixed via changeset/164655681.

-scarapella

Hello,

I reverted this change manually in change 163580995 to fix the relation.

-scarapella

Hello solongago,

Thank you for your contribution to openstreetmap. Did you intend to create a giant circular natural wood relation as part of this change set? If so, sure why not. I mean you have to stop the woods somewhere. I just wanted to check since it was a bit different.

Thanks for properly marking out the wetlands as that's sorely missing in lots of maine.

-scarapella

Hi mynameisjonas,

Thank you for your contribution to openstreetmap. By removing way/1348687617 from the relation/16875921 it has made that multi-polygon winter sports area invalid as the border is no longer closed. The iD editor should give a hint there when this happens. You can also see this error in some of the popular QA tools including:
https://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#loc=13/46.01413/-68.71308&item=xxxx&level=1%2C2%2C3&issue_uuid=546f3d4f-30c3-82c0-3ec5-5cc162c6c576

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-68.62614&lat=46.08290&zoom=11&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways

Cheers,
scarapella

Hi,

Additionally, you've removed highway=path from some sections such as the path from flagstaff hut to big eddy
way/324624766

Doing this means effectively that it's not long a path usable for hiking or biking. As you still have bicycle=yes
and foot=yes + this is marked as hike, ski, snowshoe path on your maps
https://mainehuts.org/trail-maps/

I think this is almost certainly not the behavior you intend.

Cheers,
Scarapella

Hello,

Thank you for your contributions to openstreetmap. In this change set you removed the piste:type=nordic from a section of Poplar Stream Hurt Service Road
way/1233552676#map=17/45.104984/-70.194059

By doing this OSM based maps (gasiagps, Strava, onX, etc.) will no longer see this as a cross country trail. Since you kept piste:grooming tag and ski=yes I suspect this was not your intended outcome.

Cheers
scarapella

Don’t think of me as bringing bad news. Think of me as bringing you another opportunity to edit OSM! ;-)

Hey Zelonewolf,

Looks like this edit broke relation/13363410. Not sure how important or not the zip code boundaries are in OSM, but I noticed it so I thought I'd mention it. Anyway you are the boundary guy so I leave it to you to decide :-)

Cheers,
scarapella