Thx Fogey. I didn't realize EFRX was done. That's depressing.

Hey Nate - where does EFRX tie down now if that stretch crossing 175th is disused?

Hey Tom - there's some untagged lines from that change. I'm not touching them, in case you're still working on this....

You don't seem to ever respond to my responses - as if you don't care about my rationale.
I noticed that you went into OSMCha and marked up FIVE changesets as bad, with comments on only 1. That's not how you use OSMCha, fyi. You need to mark ISSUES in each changeset - issues that need to be resolved.

Hello again...
Actually, railway right-of-ways are okay to add to OSM - (from railway=abandoned) as long as they are visible "from the ground or through aerial imagery". I do see that this practice is likely to be deprecated soon (as soon as they figure out how to export into OHM), but I wanted to finish the route relation that had been partially created for the CNE.
I agree - dismantled or demolished railways (no visibility of any kind) should definitely not be mapped. I did not map any stretches that were not visible - I was actually quite astonished at how much of it WAS visible.

On sources - that iD field was what I was talking about in my previous communication... but it's been a long time since that was an issue. I think the field was only 128 characters - I can't imagine that it's still that small. So I'll try to go back to putting sources in my changesets.
But you know very well what a pain it is - I see you only use "survey" as your source, when you do list a source! One of the few things that JOSM does better than iD.

So much to deal with here....

a) You seem to know that those "are definitely not official names", yet fail to name your source for that knowledge. In this same change you deleted the name of the Pond Mountain NA "Entry Trail", despite it clearly being the official name (www.pondmountaintrust.org > Trail Map tab). So I'm quite skeptical that you actually know what the trail names are - and I suspect that you just are guessing.
Please keep in mind that the name field is for "Common or Official usage" (name=*), which means if there is no official name, then the common name is acceptable. Just because the common name matches the trail blazing doesn't mean that it is invalid!

b) There is not enough room in the "source" field to name all my sources in every change. I do have sources for everything though - what specifically do you have questions about? I will ALWAYS respond to queries about my sources.

c) >You are adding peaks with elevation and names, deleting existing hiking relations, adding stream names...
- Elevation points are coming from many different sources, as GNIS data is notoriously bad, both in location of the elevation point, and actual elevation. I will often center the point using OpenTopoMap (much more accurate than old topos), and use common naming from Peakbagger or ListsofJohn, if the GNIS does not record the point.
- If I find hiking relations created with only one member, I am either deleting or combining them into a larger relation. A 1-member relation goes against the most basic OSM guidelines - it's pointless and a waste of your time and effort to make short unnamed trails into unnamed 1-member relations.
- Stream names are usually coming from the newer NHD dataset that can be found in many different places. The old NHD dataset currently used in many places on OSM is riddled with inaccuracies. Bull Mountain Brook near Kent is a good example.

Remember we are on the SAME TEAM: We both want the same thing - an accurate and usable dataset!
I honestly think we can work this out and come to an agreement - we are both obviously passionate about mapping, and that's exactly what OSM needs!

Greg

I take it back - the names are coming from the CFPA (www.ctwoodlands.org). Do you not consider them authoritative?

So you're just going to delete the trail names with no discussion, not even 24 hours after I edited? Not cool - at all.
I'm taking the names from DEEP - these are the names of the trails according to THE authoritative source. What is YOUR source for the changes you made?

Hey there! FYI, the 'seasonal' tag is for roads and trails. For waterways, use 'intermittent=yes'. The change here is months old, so you might already know that now - if so, disregard!
Thx -Greg

@UnionPacificRailfan Keyboard shortcuts are your friend in iD: Use the "w" key to toggle in and out of wireframe mode - that will easier to map inside a colored polygon.

changeset/114705648 fyi

Already spoke with jnighan separately. We can bring him in if necessary - the main gist is that service roads are not to be used for through roads, as most routers will ignore them.

No - since they can be used as through roads, they should go back to unclassified road as they were before, otherwise routing will fail on them. (Most routers won't route over any kind of service road)

Why on earth have you changed all roads in Pachaug SP to emergency-access service roads? The public can drive on most of those roads - they're not just open to emergency vehicles!

Hey Russ - You need to call out the nature of the abandoned rr with the 'abandoned:railway' tag. I'm assuming the CPLCo was narrow gauge - so you'd tag 'abandoned:railway=narrow_gauge'.
Also - using the 'service' tag to note that it was a logging rr isn't the way to do that. I don't remember exactly, but there's a different tag, similar to specifying substance in a pipeline or storage tank. Definitely don't use 'service' though - that will cause all sorts of problems. Cheers...

Greg

Hey there, thanks for the input!
Yeah - undoubtedly those are not named by CT-DEEP, and are probably unsanctioned/informal trails. BUT since they haven't updated their own maps for 12-13 years (wtf?!?), and so far have been unresponsive in my attempts to get some clarification on a bunch of trail issues, I'm unable to come to any conclusion so far - so I didn't use osm.wiki/Tag:'loc-name=' as that is only used when you have more than one name for a trail. I don't suppose you have an in with someone over at CT-DEEP?
As for the naming of trails with relations, very few data users populate trail names from relations. In fact, of OSM's own renderings, ZERO of the 6 (well... 5... I'm not sure what's up with ÖPNVKarte - not certain it even works anymore) insert highway names from relations! As a result, all of the Pachaug, Nehantic and Quinebaug segments here are unlabeled on every downstream MaaS site that I know of (but if there's a data user that DOES render names from relations please let me know!)

As a result, the duplicity rule does not apply to highway relations as it does to water feature relations. If you have a wiki article you can point me to that says otherwise, please forward to me so I can set things straight!

Greatly appreciate the feedback though - especially since you're local! Do you know if there's a significant amount of xc skiing that goes on there in winter? Trying to decide whether to mark some of these trails for nordic ski access.

-Greg

Yahey! Love what you're doing with 1N languages in NWT!
Just so you know, you don't want to name a river area - the way representing the river takes the name only. Water polygons with a name will be rendered as if it's naming a lake: centered in the middle 1x. Just letting you know as I'm taking off river polygon names as I see them.
Mahsi’ !

Deleting all made-up roads and facilities.
Perhaps you should check out https://opengeofiction.net/

As much as I would love to see new railway construction - this is completely bogus, and I will be removing it completely.
OpenStreetMap is for mapping things that currently exist on the ground - not fantasy.

FYI - After this change, feature name became "Carbaugh Reservior;Carbaugh Reservoir"
I'm fixing, just wanted to let you know. :)