You are tagging side walks as bicycle=yes, but you don't cite a source to support this.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107953012

Why do you say way/629588122 is highway=path, rather than highway=footway, footway=sidewalk?

Again, the sources you cite do not support the changes you are making.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107868107

Hello again, I realize that this was an existing error, but the name tag should only be used for the actual name of a feature, not for additional information, such as "dismount."

Also, you still need to cite your source(s), as whether bicyclists have to dismount or not cannot be determined by looking at Bing Imagery.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107864253

Regarding way/963180300
The name tag is only for the name, not to describe access information.

Hello, and thanks for all of the edits! One thing that would make your contributions every more useful is a specific changeset comment. For example, this changeset, like many of your recent changesets, has the comment "Colorado State University paths, updates, landuse", while not technically incorrect, specifically what was changed was maxspeed of a number of roads. Also, citing your source would also be helpful. Did these changes come from first hand observation (aka "survey") or some other source? Your changeset says you used "Bing Imagery", but of course it is not possible to get maxspeed from imagery alone.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107822357

We had an effort last fall to map in order to support the fire fighting efforts, mainly buildings and driveways. This was requested specifically by one of the firefighters who is involved OSM, rsavoye. He is a normally a volunteer fire fighter in rural boulder county, but was deployed here for the Cameron Peak Fire. Incidently, their whole department uses OSM and OSMAND (phone/tablet navigation app based on OSM).

Anyway, the effort brought in a lot of inexperienced and new mappers. I don't recall if I ever saw a case where someone deleted a newer building to replace with an old one, but I did see lots of cases where old buildings were mapped - even though I told people to check multiple sources of imagery.

Hope you are able to make it up to the area this weekend. If you are planning on hiking, most of the trails in OSM should be in good shape. Many have been aligned to the Strava Global Heatmap. Still some bridges, fords, and trail signs to add, along with more tagging detail.

I did just notice that CR 43 in the area needs to be realigned as it was rerouted sometime after the flood. So much to map, so little time...

Sorry for not contacting you first (or at least earlier). Normally I would agree with you, no reason to have buildings that are long gone. Unfortunately some of the imagery sources available in OSM still show these buildings (Esri World Premium Imagery (Clarity) Beta still shows the building in question). While local experienced OSM mappers like you and I know about the fires and floods this area has experienced over the last decade or so and would check multiple sources in attempt to determine what is actually on the ground (and/or we have actually visited the area many times), my concerned is that newer folks from outside the area would just look at one source, and add the buildings back in - or worse yet, delete your and my good work and replace it with outdated data. Hopefully all imagery sources will eventually be updated so as to not show these old buildings, and then these removed:building=* features can be removed. It is a weakness of these imagery sources, with the exception of Bing, they do not show the collection date. Even Bing normally shows a very large range for the collection date.

re recreation_ground - just because it is possible that someone might recreate on a piece of ground doesn't mean it is a landuse=recreation_ground, if it did, then almost any piece of ground that didn't have some structure on it would be a landuse=recreation_ground.

Specifically, way/961232000 is actually a catch basin for storm water, not very ideal for recreation, and certainly no outdoor seating.

Thanks for your interest in OpenStreetMap.

In OSM we map what is actually on the ground, and this trail actually does exist. Further, the last time I was in the area, there was no signs stating that the public was not allowed to use it. If there were we would tag it as access=no, but still not remove it.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107659101

https://josm.openstreetmap.de/

Full featured, thick client (doesn't run in a browser) editor for Windows, Mac, Linux. Requires Java. Very powerful, but like I said, a bit of a learning curve.

No problem, I appreciate your willingness to learn and contribute!

Regarding the square corners - with the iD editor you have to zoom in really close (e.g. such that a typical house takes up an entire PC screen), and then draw the building very precisely with nearly square corners, and then use the square function. It is not ideal. If the iD editor's square function fails (because the building wasn't close enough to being square already), it does so silently. In my opinion the JOSM editor does a much better job with squaring and buildings in general. It does have a bit of a learning curve however.

More later on the recreation areas.

Hello again PikaPutter1235, and thanks for your continued contributions to OSM!

I am not sure what is going on here, but the buildings you are entering still do not have right angled (square, 90 degree) corners.

Also, the areas you have tagged as recreation grounds do not seem to be recreation grounds, but simply grassy areas.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107653305

Nice! Glad to see another user adjusting trails to the Strava Global Heatmap! When doing this I have been adding a tag source:geometry=Strava Global Heatmap, as well as a note=* tag in the hope that in the future other users will not align the trail to their own individual GPX files.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107642849

Hi daggerw,
Thanks for your response and all of your edits! Citing a specific source will make it easier to validate edits, so that will be much appreciated!
tekim

This edit looks valid (I happen to live in the area and have driven by many times), but it would be helpful if you could cite the specific source(s) you used to make this change.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107486031

Hello, and thanks for your interest in OpenStreetMap. It is not clear from your changeset comment and the sources you cited (Bing imagery and OpenStreetMap itself), how you came to the conclusion as to the classification of these roads. Note, I don't necessarily agree or disagree with your changes, I am just suggesting that you provide some reasoning and sources when making such changes.

Thanks for your reply. It is understandable that as someone new to OSM you would make mistakes. As long as you willing to learn, which it seems you are, it is all good. It is a huge project that is constantly evolving. After over 10 years with the project I am continuing to learn.

Let me know if you have any questions.

highway=cycleway is not for bike lanes, it is only for where there is a separate way for bicycles per highway=cycleway
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107399365

Hi again,

Another little thing,
landuse=meadow is used for agricultural grazing lands, per landuse=meadow I doubt these areas are used for grazing. Perhaps landuse=grass would be better?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107401089

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for all of the edits!

In OSM buildings are drawn with square (90 degree) corners (if in reality they have square corners). In the iD editor, if you draw the building with corners close to 90 degrees, you can right click, and then click the square to "square" the corners.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107401089