You added a 1500 node boundary for Emdendorf AFB in Alaska but failed to remove the pre-existing 100 node boundary that was added in 2013.

I have two questions: Was that merely an oversight? And, is a 1500 node boundary really necessary to delineate this AFB?

It certainly seems to me that many redundant nodes could be removed from your NHD data without affecting the boundary for the purposes of OSM. But the bigger question is, can you revisit this object and clear up the double boundary in some fashion?

Many thanks.

I checked Google, and it gives Den Ha Dong Mada Road as the name. Thai street names are notoriously hard to map properly because signs bearing the name are rare. Many times the name is just a best guess and might be based on one road sign many km distant.

Somehow, portions of 1211 including this one, got renamed Den Ha (1211). Mapper did not give source. I renamed it to what it was previously, Sunwichai Road, which is a translation of the Thai name tag.

Thank you,
I checked the Wikipedia article and, assuming it has the correct coordinates, I added a name tag and some others to the invisible island. Those coords, by the way, were slightly displaced from the island but I left it located where you had it.

Also changed the name of the heliport to match the name of the island. It had been tagged Seal Island Heliport.

Hi,
You used an existing wood multipolygon as the boundary for the Tham Patham National Park. Can you tell my where you obtained the boundary information? I want to alter the wood multipolygon but do not want to affect the boundary if it is accurate.

Thanks,
Dave

Hi timdine,

I am looking at some structures (a radio tower at 70.4914528, -148.6994692 for example) you placed on an "island" in the Beaufort Sea near Prudhoe Bay. However, none of the imagery I used shows any island or any structures. Can you tell me where your data for this place came from?

Dave

You added a service road and bridge id:535046356 in Lamphun province. I recently drove through that area and there is no bridge, only a small service road. There is construction nearby but from my recall, no reason for a bridge there.

Ordinarily, I would agree with you. I came across Shea's description through a newspaper article I read that mentioned Stray Dog West. When I searched for it on OSM, nothing came up and I wanted to at least put a findable entry into Nominatum. The uncertainty of the position is why I added the fixme tag.

I will remove it if you insist but would prefer to leave it there until future imagery allows better placement.

@erkinalp, I'm not sure that would be strictly correct either. But, in any case, the better imagery resolved this particular issue. I'll be visiting the area next summer and I'll do bit of field work then.

I separated the two lines here to help you:
64.19396, -149.30145

Hi,
You accidentally duplicated a power line and its poles here. I don't have time to fix - can you do it?

I just learned through the tagging group that the newest imagery available from DigitalGlobe not only shows the new road but also strongly suggests that some of the old pavement is reverting to a track, as you indicated. It also appears the bridge over the small stream at the southern end is no longer present. If that's the case, then the track isn't even continuous and were could break it at the stream thereby solving the routing problem permanently. Do you happen to know the status of that bridge?

The tagging list has.asked the following questions: Can one still use the old section? Is it easily accessible from the new highway?

One person suggested using a tag proposed:highway =no that I've never sen before but which means the highway is destined for removal. Some routing algorithms pay attention to this tag but my guess is that yours wouldn't.

We're still working on it.

Hmmm. This situation presents an interesting problem. The old highway is, IMO, not really a track because, after all, it is paved. Yet one certainly doesn't want to be routed onto it.
You've hit upon a way to achieve that result but I wonder if OSM mappers shouldn't develop a better way to do it?
I will take it to the tagging list to get some insights.
Thanks for your effort in mapping Alaska, and for your reply.

Hi Will,
Can I ask why this old section of Richarson Hwy is tagged as a track? According to the Wiki, a track tag is for "Roads for mostly agricultural or forestry uses." The latest imagery from both ESRI and DigitalGlobe suggests that there is still good pavement on this stretch so I would have a hard time accepting that this is indeed a track unless the pavement has been removed since the relocation. I have not visited the area so cannot say for sure what the current situation on the ground is.

Thaks,
Dave

Why did you reduce the classification of the Richardson Hwy from primary to secondary? It is clearly an important road and it was primary originally.

I had always wondered what those signs meant, so you're not alone in misinterpreting them.

Johnny, the sign you used to set maxspeed here is actually a weight limit. In your Mapillary photo the 21 ตัน means 21 tons.

Definitely. It was purely accidental. Working with OSMAnd on a phone can be tricky for a person with big fingers. I'm at a loss to explain just how it happened but I'll fix it pronto.

Source should be ESRI World