Hi there - You created a duplicate road here that I am deleting, fyi.

Ahoj - Utworzyłeś tutaj zduplikowaną drogę, którą usuwam

Yeah it's all gone. Thx for the effort - sorry to waste your time

So far no go - I think I lost it all...

Also - I do use JOSM occasionally and although it's been a while since I've done a roll-back, I'm sure I could manage it.

Thx so much - Hold off on reapplying right away - want to see if the upload that's in a holding pattern will finally take.

I don't suppose there's any way I can convince you to back this change out and resubmit is there? I have 4 hours of work from yesterday that is currently hung out to dry due to conflicts on the railroad right-of-ways in Owego that you deleted.
I can't get the changes to come back in iD either - possibly because they're in limbo and still trying to submit.
I have no issue with your changes per se, in fact I'm glad you're doing what you're doing - I just made a LOT of road fixes NW of Owego and I'm dreading having to redo everything. Thx in advance...

It's honestly total chaos - just about every district seems to be doing something different with roads and trails than its neighbors. If you think the 4-digit stems are annoying, you'll hate the new TR prefix for trails.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126166211

That officially went into effect at the beg of 2021 btw

All stem FSRs are now supposed to be signed (or at least classed) as 4 digit numerals now (except for California, which apparently is allowed to do whatever they want). Granted most districts will take their time in re-signing (hell, most districts still have signs with the old "NF" prefix), but I'm bumping the stems to 4 digit when I see them.
When the 2 digit is part of the name I keeping the name the way it is though.
Hope that makes sense...

Hi there John... Here's the sauce: https://listsofjohn.com/peak/142818
https://www.peakbagger.com/peak.aspx?pid=32357

TBH, I did about 5 mins of research (including looking at your photos) and I remember now is that the Mauch Chunk narrow gauge was the inspiration. That and looking at the grading of some of the curves had me thinking it wasn't standard gauge. Thanks for the heads-up!

Heya! Just a note: Don't use highway=track for through roads. Tracks are generally not routable, so if it's a primitive road that nonetheless can be used as a through route (and not a dead end) use an 'unclassified' tag. You might already know that, since this change is from 6 months ago, and if so - please ignore! Happy mapping!

Heya Kevin - Just an FYI, the upper limit of place=hamlet is generally considered to be 200-250 population. You've changed a lot of villages to hamlet which has made them effectively disappear from the map!

Thanks for the info - fixed!

Hey Nate! What press briefing? You didn't include a link. It's probable that they were just looking at a map, and not at an authoritative source. Look at the IVF or (better source) https://data-usfs.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/usfs::motor-vehicle-use-map-roads-feature-layer/explore?location=47.801812%2C-121.511026%2C14.00

Actually - the 6 rest areas I just looked at are completely bogus. I suspect that this whole changeset needs to be reverted.

@andrewsuzuki I don't recall what my rationale was - I believe I was looking at the Nepaug SF data in ArcGIS. Please change it back if that edit was incorrect.

@Glassman The mapper was trying to mark the trail as ATV-permitted. I'm fixing right now. The fords were duplicated many times as well.

@Glassman Actually, if you look at downstream data users almost ALL of them do not differentiate between a bridge over or culvert under. We of course need to strive for accuracy - and I do that to the best of my ability. The most important datapoint here is whether the waterway is forded or not.
If I'm on a track in the wilderness, I don't care if I'm on a bridge or going over a culvert - but I *do* care if I'm expected to wade into thigh-deep water!
Having said all that, USFS has clear procedures for commissioned forest roads - they are almost always culverted so they can easily rip out the culvert when they decommission. If you *expect* to see a culvert on an FSR, it's actually pretty easy to spot it!

@OrcaDan I get what you're saying about road accuracy, and I respect that, but the NHD is not well-known for accuracy either! Also, regarding your post-import work - what I'm seeing does not reflect your stated response. For instance, on a true residential (well-mapped) street in the Swakane area I see one creek/road intersection has a culvert, yet 2 others just down the street have nothing. It seems fairly random - is it automated in some way?
I'm partially annoyed because as soon as you plunked down those waterways over roads where I was last editor, it gave all of the resulting "non-intersection" Osmose errors to ME!
My other issue is that I'm taking part in a pilot project for the Trails Working Group, and of course one of the project areas is right smack in the middle of the waterway "densification" that you imported - so I'm unable to edit any waterways unless I want all of THOSE Osmose errors as well.
I'm getting through it though - so excuse my pique from the heat of the moment.