As far as I know, that is the case. There is a gravel surfaced service road that parallels the entire TAP. Also, I believe the correct tag for pipelines when underground is location=underground or if above ground location=overground

Questions:
Why did you not continue way:608707568 or way:60870730 to their obvious intersection with 2050?

Also, way:608707338 just stops when there are many more streets south of where you ended it. It would have been nice to see a connection made to those residential streets, which after you quit your session, offer no access whatsoever. In addition, that way continues south to connect with way:442378722. But you did not continue it. Why?

Some questions, I'm curious as to
why did you not continue way:608703080 to its obvious intersection with way:458940712?
Why did you not continue way:608703018 to its obvious intersection with way:53830086?

Why did you not connect these two sections of what is obviously the same residential street, way:608703079 and way:458940714?

Why did you not extend service road id:458940930 to its obvious intersection with way:458940715?

Hi,
You have tagged a feature (id=529818369) using 1493 nodes as natural=water but much of it it appears to be wetland. The DigitalGlobe-Premium imagery you used clearly shows this. I'm confused.

I'm mapping in the area of Fox, Alaska, and have come across some of your work. Thanks for your effort in Alaska but I am curious about how you draw your lakes and streams. It seems to me that many objects you've drawn use far too many points. A small pond with a 3 mile long shoreline contains 846 points (id:530770840) and a 6 mile long section of Goldstream Creek (id:530770823) contains 1407. It seems a waste of space to store all these points to represent such simple objects. I simplified the way defining the pond and 179 points shows it well enough IMO. (I did not upload the simplified way. I undid my changes.).
So how do you do it? And why do you use so many points?
Respectfully,
Dave

Hi,
What did you change to fix this multipolygon? There is an ongoing discussion about tagging groups of lakes in the Tagging list right now. I thought these "Twin Claderas" might be a similar example but noticed that you had edited it just after I mapped them. I cannot tell from the history what it was that you changed.

Cheers, Dave

Another source is
Surface Waters of the Seward Peninsula, Smith & Brooks, 1913

Hi,
I assume you added this tourism=attraction node and that it refers to the Krakauer story about McCandless but you gave no indication of the source of your information. Could you put that information in a note perhaps?

I also assume that the "FCTS #142" you included in the name is that source but I have no idea what that notation refers to.

Thanks,
Dave

Hi again,
After reviewing the newest imagery, I do not see any section having 5 lanes in Delta Junction. There are short sections of dual carriageway on both Alaska & Rich Hwys where they meet south of the main run through town but those are very short, and are legitimately tagged the way they are. But just north of that junction the two highways merge into one and it becomes a 4-lane highway through town. The tagging then should be lanes=4, lanes:backward=2, lanes:forward=2

First off, let me welcome you to OSM. We desperately need more OSMers in Alaska and I was happy to notice some other stuff you have mapped. Hetting back to the question at hand:

There is some precedent for tagging the way you chose to do it but generally, if a highway doesn't have a divider, a grass strip or concrete barrier of some sort then it is not a dual carriageway. Google shows that section of the Richardson as a dual carriageway but I think that's incorrect.

I would tag it as lanes=5, lanes:forward=2, lanes:backward=2, turn:lanes:forward=left (or backward). The forward or backward refers to the direction the OSM way is drawn.

I do a ton of work in Alaska (I live in Homer during the summer, and Thailand in the winter), and it's good to see someone else working in the state I love.

If you want me to help change that section to use the lanes scenario, let me know and I will do that.

Cheers,
Dave

Hi,
I'm interested in why you created a dual carriageway for the Richardson Hwy in Delta Junction. IIRC, it is not divided; the lanes are only separated by yellow lines.

AlaskaDave

Hi Jan,
Discussions of the tagging list are ongoing about how to tag slow vehicle turnouts. One suggestion was "smv" for slow moving vehicle". I think we've decided to use "slow_vehicle" as the tag. I will update this object once the decision is final. The thread is here:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-September/038854.html

Hi,
All I did was remove the name=Glenn Highway from the cycleway, it was plainly not correct. The original mapper was Jason Rowland and his edits had to do with making the path visible in an app he favors., See
Changeset: 61136373
Added cycle route along AK-1 to allow use of Kamoot. Kamoot does not allow cycle route to align with motorways - there are no other routes in this case, making Kamoot unusable in this region w/o a designated cycle path.

Be well...

It's actually worse than what you described - there is no amenity tag on either the area or the receptacles. I decided to simply leave it alone because I have no ground survey data to determine what that area actually is.
As for the history, maybe I moved the area slightly to better align it and that made it appear to be my work, I dunno.

I found the area you're referring to at last but even though it appears that I did the tagging, I believe the history function is not working properly because I did not add that object originally. I know that because I would NEVER add that type of obviously created name and description on those receptacles even if they were placed on the nodes. I'm at a loss to explain why the history of that object has my name in it with 100% of it attributed to me (???)

I removed the tags from the area and placed them on three nodes to represent the three receptacles visible in the imagery.

I cannot find any amenity=waste_basket tags in Eugene that are not a simple node. Can you be more specific?
In the future, please feel free to correct any obvious errors, like this one, if you encounter them.

Fixed it. The tag was meant for the food shop nearby.
Thx.

Got it, extra tags removed. Thanks!

Thank you for the note. I forgot to clean up the original tags and left some extra tags on one section. I removed those. But I don't see any "overlap" with previously mapped rivers. Can you explain more fully what you mean?

After doing some more checking, I learned that the smaller, older boundary multipolygon is incomplete. A large section is missing. If you have no objection, I will delete it and simplify the boundary you added last year.