Use 'man_made=petroleum_well' and choose 'substance=gas'

An appropriate and FRIENDLY thing to do would have been to send me a message that our changes in Michaux were conflicting once you saw the conflict errors in this changeset

You could have at LEAST had the decency to warn me that we were editing in the same area! I'm tempted to revert this change since you stomped all over everything I was working on. Why shouldn't I?

Thx Andy - I was hoping you'd chime in on this. Would you consider this trail to be legit though, based on Bing imagery clearly showing the north side of the trail?

FYI - Don't put the trail number in the trail name tag. Trail number goes in the osm.wiki/Tag:'ref=' tag.

Got it - Fairangel Lakes, and the Fairangel Lakes Trail.
"Essentially a miniature version of the uber-popular Reed Lakes trail."
https://hikingalaska.net/2019/12/20/fairangel-lakes/

Reed Lakes Trail follows Reed Creek where Archangel Creek meets it to the East. Your trail is valid, but I don't know what it is or what those lakes are. Yet.

That's definitely not the Reed Lakes Trail, fyi

Hi there - just so you know, make sure you convert elevation data into meters!

@ZeLonewolf Ooookay - that's a new constriction I wasn't aware of. Or is that something you made up just now?
i.e. "You can't map from Strava unless you can see the trail or are performing a survey"

Ugh. So - the current ref tagging for forest ways is pure chaos, both on OSM and in the real world. The USFS has come forward and **appears** to have endorsed the usage of "FS" as a forest road prefix, and "TR" as a forest trail prefix.
The difference between the two is necessary because in some NFs/ranger districts the road and trail numbers are similar, and there's a need to separate out FS 350 from TR 350.
Some RDs on the IVM have even started adding the TR prefix to the trail numbers there, when they have a lot of trail number collision.
The main thing is that the NF prefix is to no longer be used - although it does appear that some RDs are purposefully still using it just to be rebellious. *sigh* Whatever.
I'm going to be initiating a change to the OSM wiki soon, detailing all of this, and encouraging mappers to climb on board.
Let me know your thoughts!

No problem - the IVM is an invaluable resource, and if I could I'd reference it in my changesets. The problem is that there's not enough room for sources in changeset fields - I commonly am using 5-10 different sources at once as I map, and the changeset schema won't let me list more than a couple.
I've been thinking of posting my sources on my user page as a blanket sourcing document - better than nothing ?

So I've fixed the access on the AT - that was a complete brainfart on my part - thanks for spotting it.

So the WMNF - like all NFs I map in - expressly allows mountain bikes in most areas:
"All trails, roads, and *travel corridors on the White Mountain National Forest are open to mountain bikes except in Congressionally designated Wilderness areas, on the Appalachian Trail, or where otherwise posted.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/activity/whitemountain/recreation/bicycling

I don't see anything about stock usage though, and that's weird. But horses are commonly allowed by default on most USFS trails. I'm fixing the AT screw-up right now - I've seen that in some ranger districts they ignore the AT's special regulations for the IVM, which is pretty lazy on their part.

Actually - I just notice that this is part of the AT, so that HAS to be bad data. Investigating...

The USFS themselves mark that trail as "Managed For Hiking" and "Open To Pack And Saddle" and "Open To Biking". Is there local signage that contradicts this? If so, it wouldn't be the first time.

https://www.fs.fed.us/ivm/index.html?minx=-7983168&miny=5485679&maxx=-7981878&maxy=5487733&exploremenu=no
(click on the trail)

Oh jeez - thanks for reminding me. I forgot to toggle the different Strava modes to see if there was any non-winter activity - looks like it tapers off to the first north fording of Ship Creek. Would you agree that this whole route is a 'piste_type=hike' situation?

FYI - I'm planning to map all the way down to Indian Creek - let me know if you have any insight as a local. I always cede way to those that are local on-the-ground.

Hi Hans - All of the above, actually. The winter route is very easy to follow on Strava (much to my surprise - I expected the trail to be much more diffuse and unmappable), and the summer trail to the east is mostly satellite/Lidar imagery and some Strava, with topo maps guiding the way (trail is VERY hard to pick out in places). I plan to tag trail visibility accordingly.

> I just think there's a high risk of bad mapping when singularly using Strava data without a secondary reference (personal knowledge, another map, etc.) My people getting lost comment is a sentiment that guides my OSM mapping. "Would I be comfortable if a friend used this data to plan their hiking trip" etc.

Oh okay - my misunderstanding of your comment. I'm ALWAYS using more than one source when I map: besides Strava, OSM GPS traces and satellite imagery, I'm also using the USFS IVM (https://www.fs.fed.us/ivm/) and/or the USFS GDS portal (https://data-usfs.hub.arcgis.com/) and whatever local maps and/or trail reports I can find.
I'm completely anal about accuracy and usability, with the knowledge that what I'm mapping will pop into Mapbox/Natural Atlas/AllTrails/ArtOfTheTrek/etc etc within a few months.
And yeah... I might use iD, but I'm definitely not a beginner mapper.
But always happy and eager to learn and be educated - so on a similar friendly note, thanks for keeping me on point and accountable. It's good that there are other mappers paying attention!

@TomPar Despite what you said, you ARE being overly dramatic. As if my failure to post a speed limit tag on a road makes me liable for a driver's crash or speeding ticket. Likewise, my mapping of a trail or bushwhack route does NOT make me liable for another human's actions or issues on that trail.
I won't even get started on your apparent hostility toward armchair mapping.
Your comments have been noted, but please understand that if we solely rely on in-person survey for mapping, OSM would be nowhere.