The issue was creating a boundary relation with untagged ways

I've had that pulled up as I've been going through the state, need to add some of the relations I've added to Wikidata

Basically the issue was I was seeing iD not let me save anything unless my ways in the boundary relation had a tag, I've been using boundary=administrative for that but moving forward I'll use the source tag

Once I have some free time (ha ha ha) I'll go back to the counties I've done boundary cleanup in and make that the standard way for tagging ways in boundary relations (at least in SD)

I think it was just warning about completely untagged ways that weren't part of a multipolygon relation, I went back and added the source tag to the way and that solved the problem

Should I not add "boundary=administrative, admin_level=whatever" to boundary ways when I'm updating them? The iD validator gets upset with me if the way isn't tagged

That's public access? I was always too nervous to check it out.

here's my first attempt, using the Chamberlain section as a guinea pig: changeset/156538408

Makes sense, looks like it was added to the relations 4 years ago by someone in KC.

I'll do some digging and see if there's a good way to denote part-time fishing access rather than just yes or no.

Shore fishing is still allowed though, and that's roughly a 1/4 mile stretch for 5 months out of the year. Not sure the best way to tag that though. Looking at other states it appears that there's a few other small areas where fishing is allowed most of the time.

The best way to do this would be if the fishing tag had a "designated" option instead of just yes or no, but there's not much documentation on that.

Where would fishing not be allowed, do you think? I know for sure it's allowed through all of South Dakota (know people in GF&P)

Hi! Thanks for your contributions! Just so you're aware, abbreviating route ref modifiers is against the community norms for tagging route refs (see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/kevinajames95-currently-mangling-tags-along-route-66-and-bannered-routes-elsewhere/106723). Feel free to join that thread for discussion. Thanks again!

Hi! Thanks for your contributions! Just so you're aware, abbreviating route ref modifiers is against the community norms for tagging route refs (see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/kevinajames95-currently-mangling-tags-along-route-66-and-bannered-routes-elsewhere/106723). Feel free to join that thread for discussion. Thanks again!

Hi! Thanks for your contributions! Just so you're aware, abbreviating route ref modifiers is against the community norms for tagging route refs (see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/kevinajames95-currently-mangling-tags-along-route-66-and-bannered-routes-elsewhere/106723). Feel free to join that thread for discussion. Thanks again!

They opened the bike path? Gonna have to check that out when I'm back in town.

no, not at all, don't know where that came from to be honest

fixed

Feel like I'm opening a can of worms here, but is the Dakota name for Touch The Sky Prairie on any of the signs or official sources? If not it might be better to leave the Dakota name in the name:dak tag and keep the name tag in English (might as well add a name:en tag too).

changeset/10000!

Weird, must have slipped through the cracks, JOSM's been pretty good about giving me warnings when I miss one (these should be inholdings in the NF and there's a lot of them)

That was based on feedback from the OSM Americana group, essentially the idea was if it's more like a park where you can buy an annual pass it would be fee, but if you have to pay every time you use the road it would be toll. The distinction to me seems kinda flexible, but the way I'm conceptualizing it is that state parks, national parks, etc. would be fee and turnpikes/toll bridges would be toll.