Hi the ways you drew (1011047320, 1011047319) are overlapping with already existing roads + they are not even properly connected.
Please fix that and refrain from such edits in the future.

Hi,
Thanks for editing, but for the future please don't delete existing objects e.g. forest, water areas,...

Also I recommend looking at wiki to see how to properly draw golf green, fairway, rough polygons
leisure=golf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls

Before changing any road classification in CT, please contact [jnighan](@jnighan).

osm.wiki/User:Jnighan/Connecticut_Highway_Classification_Proposal

Noted!
Thanks for fixing it!

btw there is now new CT ECO 2019 and MetroCOG 2020 orthophoto imagery available in iD

Thanks for finishing the trail.
Just a small thing, paths and roads should not be drawn on top of each other. If a path meets a road, that is the place where the path ends.

I fixed the two overlaps so all is good.

Hi,
Thanks for the edits. Though no need to add trail name on paths. It is already included in hiking route relation:
relation/11974625

I don't have any direct contacts there, but if they don't respond to emails then the best is to call. They can't dodge you like that. I am not into cross-country skiing, but I'd say if it's not prohibited then it's allowed.

loc_name just means local name it doesn't mean that there must be a name tag. Looking at it from a rigorous perspective, when you were there, did you notice any signs or maps with those names?

General agreement is that we add the names only to the route relation, because it is not the name of the path but the name of the route that can even go over named residential roads, which have name of their own.
Rendering the name from the relation is not really difficult so if some map does not show them it's for a purpose. If maps would render only text from operator tag would we start adding trail names there?

Names of routes are shown for e.g. by [Mapy.cz](https://en.mapy.cz/turisticka?x=-72.2098595&y=41.8635217&z=15), [Waymarked trails](https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=11038937&map=11!41.9103!-72.1733) in details section, [OsmAnd app](https://osmand.net/), [Thunderforest](https://www.thunderforest.com/maps/outdoors/),...

Hi,
thanks for the trail data. Just a comment on those trail names. "Dirty Dancing", "Slap Happy".. that doesn't look like an official name that CT DEEP would use. More appropriate I think would be to use loc_name=*

Also trails (particularly those that are marked) are mapped as relations and so the name of the trail is not added duplicately on the path itself.
Both Nehatic and Pachaug trail have relations 11257426, 4783347.

OK.
Thanks again for contributing!

Interesting. Thanks for the link.
Are those names also officially recognized by CT DEEP? I know I was there a few years back and I don't remember seeing trail names posted.

I was just wondering if loc_name=* would be more appropriate in this case.
name=*#Variants

Hi! Welcome and thanks for contributing to OSM!
Just a question, what is the source of these trail names? Official documents for the state park don't mention any of those names.

Hi there is an ongoing road reclassification in CT. Before you do any more edits please contact jnighan (@jnighan).

osm.wiki/User:Jnighan/Connecticut_Highway_Classification_Proposal

Awesome, more things to map!
I added your stretch to the exiting relation.

though some of the service roads look more like service=parking_aisle

Hi,
just a question. Is this a new extension of the trail?
The original trail terminates south from there:
relation/3776993

And that is what CFPA website still shows
https://www.ctwoodlands.org/blue-blazed-hiking-trails/blue-blazed-hiking-trails-interactive-map

Thanks!
I fixed your opening hours formatting

I think I just assumed, because this little area was tagged as fairway.
relation/13431265

Good job! Thanks
Just always check if the business already exists. For example John's Cafe is there now twice (once on the building itself and one on the node) or Wells Fargo bank

Obsah GoogleMaps nie je pre OSM smerodatny. Dolezite je, ci ten objekt naozaj fyzicky existuje.