This ski area and trails & lift no longer exist. Only currently-existing features should be added to OpenStreetMap. Please make these types of additions of no-longer existing features to https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/ . In OpenHistoricalMap you will also be able to add start and end dates for each feature (such as the dates when lifts were added or removed).

changeset/177827073

Thanks for the info Quincy, I hadn't see that canoe mode of OpenTrailMap before!

Looking at the Saint Regis Canoe Area at https://opentrailmap.us/#map=13.52/44.3315/-74.36861&mode=canoe&inspect=1&selected=way/1227692776 I'm noticing that ways tagged with waterway=flowline+canoe=yes are getting highlighted/rendered, whereas waterway=flowline alone doesn't. I'm wondering if it would be worth splitting some of those waterway=flowline and dropping canoe=yes on the parts that simply connect out to small inlet streams. Canoes *can* go there, but it doesn't make sense as part of any through route...

If the cables and towers are no longer there, then don't map them as lifts -- they are no longer lifts. Instead, map the lift-lines as grass or scrub as fits the ground cover and map the surround forested areas as natural=wood. You can even map the concrete footings as man_made=foundation if you really want that level of detail.

Hi Quincy, I was just looking at a lot of the streams & flowlines in Champlain and noticed that you added canoe=discouraged to many of them. Was this a blanket addition to most flowlines in the lake or something with a bit more nuance?

I've paddled my canoe across narrower parts of Champlain several times, and while I wouldn't recommend it in bad weather, much of the lake with islands and constrictions isn't particularly hazardous.

Re-added with correct user account

changeset/176336031

I uploaded with the wrong user account

changeset/176335992

Also, please square the buildings with the "Q" shortcut.

Please be a bit more careful mapping buildings. You mapped piles of logs, cars, and garden beds as buildings.

Thanks for the heads-up! This was caused by JOSM when copy-pasting with the line Conflation plugin window focused rather than the editing window focused (I think).

I've removed it in node/8960193938

Don't hesitate to reach out if you have other questions. You can contact me through messages here or on the OSM-US Slack (where myself and a few thousand other mappers coordinate our efforts): https://openstreetmap.us/get-involved/slack/

If you join the Slack, check out the #local-new-york, #protected-lands, and #forest-mapping channels as they may be of interest to you.

Cheers!
Adam

Hi Steve, thanks for the quick reply. relation/18132478 is an appropriate treatment. You'll want to add the ponds and any other no-tree areas as "inner" elements to the natural=wood multipolygon, but you are on the right track. :-)

`natural=wood` isn't an appropriate tag for the boundary=protected_area object itself as the entire area is not woods. There are also marshes and ponds enclosed. Additionally, the area of trees extends beyond the boundary and this larger area is what could have natural=wood applied rather than the boundary line itself.

`natural=wood` isn't an appropriate tag for the boundary=protected_area object itself as the entire area is not woods. There are also marshes and ponds enclosed. Additionally, the area of trees extends beyond the boundary and this larger area is what could have natural=wood applied rather than the boundary line itself.

Hi Osaka. `natural=wood` is not an appropriate tag for protected areas as they are not exclusively covered in trees. They contain may lakes, meadows, open rock areas, marshes, and other forms of land-cover.

Messed up the description on this change set. This is Elmore addresses, not Waterbury.

Reverted accidental import of reference data

changeset/163503570

Realized that I had building conflation done incorrectly. Will re-do

changeset/163259826

I realized that some buildings weren't properly conflated with the address points. Will try again.

changeset/163257631

Hello, what is the reason that you changed Bennington from place=town to place=city?

The place=* tag is to indicate the regional importance of a place rather than denoting its incorporation status. The entire Town of Bennington has a population of only ~15,000 people, putting it firmly in the place=town category, even if it is the largest town in this region of southern Vermont.

See the following for more background:
* https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/toward-a-national-system-for-functionally-classifying-populated-places/113674
* place=*
* https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/broad-undiscussed-new-england-place-name-reclassification/111201

See https://www.vtcng.com/news_and_citizen/news/local_news/lake-eligo-zoning-changes-churn-the-waters/article_e8fadb80-f5f5-11eb-ba15-cfa6116c8a9b.html for a description of the dual outlets.