Thanks Cliff.
I think Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge is the correct name. I can change it easily as I'm mapping in that area already.
My town Homer, got some heavy shaking but no major damage. I didn't feel a thing because since I retired I've been living in Thailand during the winters. LOL. Too damn cold and dark up north.

It's not the name of the island I'm asking about. It's the name of the refuge.
My shapefile for the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge is a perfect copy of your boundary for the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge on Unimak Island. Which is correct, Izembek or Alaska Maritime?

Hi again Clifford,
I am working on adding the giant Alaska Maritime NWR and came across your work where yu added Unimak Island as part of the Izembek NWR. Indeed, the shapefile you gave me a while ago for Izemebek does include Unimak Island. However, my shapefile for the Alaska Maritime NWR includes Unimak Island also — all the boundaries included in my shapefile match yours perfectly except for the name.
Can you check your source file to help resolve this?

Hi Russ,

I was working in the area, made a few edits but when uploading, JOSM complained about the old-style tag you used:
highway=ford. I removed that and substituted ford=yes. But is this place actually a tourism attraction?
Also, the highways in that area are tagged as tracks but another user commented on his changeset that he has driven them and they were concrete paved. I commented on that and hopefully he will get back to me.
Are these ways paved?

The other way is id:260723853. Your comment on this changeset is "just drove this road and can confirmed it is concreate paved"

Hi,
I noticed this changeset comment on this way id:260723849, and another that connects to it. But the surface is still tagged as unpaved.
I'm convinced these are not tracks but either unclassified or residential ways but knowing what the surface is would be helpful.
Can you check on that?

Okay, thanks. I'm going to replace what's there with the data from the US National Park Service that I have. I'll fix up the coastline while I'm at it.

Hector:
I'm confused about the boundary for the Aniakchak National Preserve. You added several boundary ways that look wrong to me, way:482748961, way:276151571, way:276151567. I think the boundary follows the coastline rather than the way you mapped it.
Can you comment on that?

Hi Matt,
I'm trying to complete the work started by NJSkunk in Denali NP. Now, I see that you changed portions of the Park Road to highway=service.
I'm thinking that while in some sense the entire highway is a service road, it is also an important highway and perhaps should be tagged accordingly. I'd like to make it at least a tertiary highwau for it's entire length.

If you have a compelling argument against this change, let me know.

Cheers
Dave

Hi,
How did you decide to divide this wetland and tag way:332678202 as a beach_resort?

I'm not intimately familiar with the Anchorage shoreline but that AFAIK the area is muddy and nobody uses it as a resort. Unless something major has changed.

Gerd,
I'm not saying remove way tags from ALL pipelines! We're talking about one pipeline, the TAPS. In the TAPS there is only one substance=oil, and it is carried in a single man_made=pipeline. In this case, those tags belong in the relation and not on the way. I doesn't hurt to have them on ways, it's just totally unnecessary.

As for the thread, the two people who disagree with me are you and Mateusz. Did you read Kevin Kenny's comment at the top of the section you have in that link?

He said, "On a multipolygon, as I observed before, every attribute belongs to the multipolygon unless the way has some existence apart from its role in defining the multipolygon boundary."

"Some existence apart from defining the boundary" means some attribute that makes that member different such as surface, maxspeed, location, etc. Those are the tags that belongs on the individual member and not on the top level relation or multipolygon.

If I haven't convinced you by now and you don't believe what's in the Wiki, presumably written by experts, than I'm ready to quit this discussion. You can continue to do things the way you've always done them and I'll do things the way I think the Wiki means us to do them.
Best,
Dave

Gerd,
I am not establishing a NEW tagging system for pipelines, I'm merely trying tag it the way that's most meaningful and most correct. The Wiki is quite clear about it, IMO. The concepts apply to ALL relations, not just pipelines. How it looks has nothing to do with it. Nor does sorting.
I've provided two sections of the Wiki that support my argument. Several commenters agreed with my arguments on the thread in the Tagging list. Can you show me any text that says what I did was wrong?

Actually, if a way has a name in the Iditarod Trail route, it's a named road and as such the name would stay on that piece only. Also, those ways might be a track, path, or service road, and have surface=gravel, ground, or ice as well. I repeat, those characteristics belong on the ways and definitly not on the relation. Obviously, the entire Trail is not on gravel service roads, nor is it all on frozen rivers but all those pieces are grouped together under the umbrella of the Iditarod route relation

My removal of the tags on the TAPS follows the same reasoning. Each of its many sections gets it's own tagging, just as do the various different pieces of the Iditarod, except that the only thing that varies is location (under- or overground, and bridges). There is always a pipeline and the tag for it belongs in the relation, along with the operator, the various alternative names, and etc.

I already mentioned the relevant piece of the Wiki in one of my many posts in that thread. Check out the first paragraph under Usage on this page: osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon
Also, see a similar statement under the heading Islands on the riverbank page:
waterway=riverbank
They both say not to tag the ways except when they have different attributes. Which is exactly what I'm saying.

I think the reason there is no code to handle relations tagged the way I've done it is because people have been doing it incorrectly for many years. Rather than saying what I'm doing is a "exception" let's try to get mkgmap to a state where tagging like this can be dealt with properly.
Best,
Dave

I don't agree. Yuu quoted the Wiki earlier when you stated that the ways should have the same tags as the relation but I found a different place in the Wiki where it agrees with my contention that ways should only have tags when the characteristic or attributes of the way differ from one another. I believe this is not only correct but immensely more efficient.
Feel free to add those tags back but I'm going to continue to map such objects the correct way. I added the entire Iditarod Trail as a route relation and as soon as I have time I'm going to remove the redundant tags from it. Seriously, I'm convinced this method is better. A side note: OSM doesn't render the pipeline even with man_made=pipeline on the ways, however, mkgmap will if you have a matching style. Whether mkgmap would render it if the pipeline tag were only on the relation is a question that you would be able to answer

I think a relation is definitely needed. I doubt it could be feasibly mapped (and maintained) any other format. This thing is 1300 km long, has countless bridges and many sections that are underground or overground — something changes every few miles, and that requires breaking those ways so they can be tagged. Trying to obtain consistent tagging on every one of those myriad pieces would be impossible. But if you use a relation, the tags inside the relation apply to every piece of it.
In fact, this is my interpretation of the reasoning behind having relations for things like routes in the first place. Any tag that applies to every member way goes in the top level relation tag space. Particular characteristics of the individual segments (ways) are tagged only on the way itself. For example, variable characteristics like surface, lanes, or in this case, location or bridge, that might change every few miles get those specific tags on that segment.

Anyway, this is an excellent discussion about an important concept that I'm still trying to fully understand. I want to bring it to the tagging group and get a discussion going.
Best,
Dave

In taking another look, I see that I removed the man_made=pipeline tag from the way but did not add it to the relation. My bad. I just added it to the relation.

Would this solve the issue for you?

I cannot find the part in the Wiki you're referring to. Could you point me to it?

Let me ask in the tagging list. I'm learning a lot about relations there but this question hasn't come up yet.

Actually, I only responded to this because I was browsing recent changesets in the U.S and when I saw the TAP mentioned added some of my personal knowledge. The only editing I did was to remove redundant tags from the pipeline way, tags that are more properly placed on the relation itself.

Hi Gerd,
Yes, I removed the ones that duplicated the tags on the relation, except for the location=underground, which changes frequently. I'm under the impression that the only tags that should be found on ways are ones that cannot be placed inside the relation.
I've done a lot of work on the pipeline, relocating and determining where it's overground or underground but never thought to remove the redundant tags before. I do think that's the new procedure for tagging relations but maybe I'm wrong.

The boundary of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge generally follows the west bank of the Canning River. I used the riverbank as the boundary in order to reduce redundancy because I believe the small discrepancies observed are not critically important in OSM.