Like I said before PT - GET section is not commonly recognized as an "official" subset of the pinhoti. It simply denotes the length of trail that the GET suggests you take as part of its larger route. This is the reason I believe that it should not be a subset of the pinhoti trail relation, although as you rightly point out that would make data maintenance easier.

Although the following case should be considered, what if a user, unfamiliar with the GET but familiar with the Pinhoti adds a section of the Pinhoti already a member of the PT - GET relation to the Pinhoti relation? I think this is more likely than the user being aware of the sub-relation and correctly adding it to that sub relation every time.

Also, I did not revert your change in order to assert that the way I suggested was the agreed upon solution, I reverted it since the relation at the time of the edit contained neither the PT - GET relation nor any of that relation's members, and I wished for it to correctly reflect the whole trail, even if it was later necessary to revert to the sub relation strategy.

reverted:
changeset/187006252

I didn't notice that the members of PT - GET were removed from the Pinhoti Trail relation but I will restore them this afternoon

Hello,
I created the PT - GET relation in order to denote that section as part of the Great Eastern Trail. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the area but the Pinhoti Trail is well understood to be its own trail, while the Great Eastern Trail sort of "piggybacks" off of a section of it to form the larger trail.
The GET section of the Pinhoti is less of:
"this is GET trail that overlaps with the Pinhoti and the GET is the maintainer"

and more of:
"This is the Pinhoti trail and the Great Eastern Trail happens to follow it for this portion"

Therefore, I believe that they should maintain separate relations

Hi Elliott,
These polygons are artefacts of the conflation process. Existing objects from OSM were conflated with the new data by generating a buffer around the old objects and simply subtracting that buffer from the new objects. I passed over the results with my eyes to try to find as many cases like this as I could and remove them before uploading, but evidently these were missed. The reason I used the buffer instead of directly subtracting the existing geometry is that I could not think of an easy way to combine overlapping nodes automatically.

I have deleted the offending geometry you pointed out.

Thanks for the feedback,

- note/5396673

This note is referring to objects added by another user, not by the import, I did not choose the tags for those specific objects

- way/1189040427

I would argue that this could qualify as a reservoir, the shape makes me think that it was built by damming a flow, rather than creating an artificial basin for water to collect.

- way/1189056777
- way/1189058016
- way/1189040806/
These objects are definitely basins that were not mapped as such.

The reason that this might have happened is that the Florida DEP created the landuse data around 2019, and the imagery they used may have shown these objects slightly differently. This is what I believe might have happened in the case of the marsh object.

Do you know how widespread the issue is? The safest bet may be to opt for a more generic scheme (natural=water instead of natural=water + water=reservoir) if the issue is widespread enough.

Thank you for your work with the Cumberland Trail

Hello,
When adding communication mast infrastructure, please use the "mast" preset in JOSM, not "communications tower".
Object: node/12769539248
See:
man_made=communications_tower

man_made=mast

Thanks,
James

Hello,
When adding communication mast infrastructure, please use the "mast" preset in JOSM, not "communications tower".
Object: node/12607308672
See:
man_made=communications_tower

man_made=mast

Thanks,
James

Hello,
Please use man_made=mast + tower:type=communication
not man_made=communications_tower
Object: way/1034031133
See:
man_made=communications_tower

man_made=mast

Thanks,
James

Hello,
When adding communication mast infrastructure, please use the "mast" preset in JOSM, not "communications tower".
Object: node/12980312189
See:
man_made=communications_tower

man_made=mast

Thanks,
James

Hello,
When adding communication mast infrastructure, please use the "mast" preset in JOSM, not "communications tower".
Object: node/13860286017
See:
man_made=communications_tower

man_made=mast

I have deleted your node as it was a duplicate of an existing object
Thanks,
James

Hello,
When adding communication mast infrastructure, please use the "mast" preset in JOSM, not "communications tower".
Object: node/13051296400
See:
man_made=communications_tower

man_made=mast

Thanks,
James

Hello,
When adding communication mast infrastructure, please use the "mast" preset in JOSM, not "communications tower".
See:
man_made=communications_tower

man_made=mast

Thanks,
James

Hi Deel93,

Thank you for your contributions to OSM in Jemison.

For vacant shops, please use shop=vacant instead of “vacant” as the name, since it is not the official/actual name of the building.

Additionally, in the iD editor, you can simply press “q” to perfectly square the corners of buildings, which is best practice.

Happy mapping,
James

Hello. Is "access road"
way/282335763
access=no? do you have a website or map that corroborates this?

hello
please use
man_made=mast + tower:type=communication
for describing objects such as
node/12920600376
The man_made=communication tag is for very large structures that are only common in europe

I have added the tag currency:XBT=yes
changeset/183228934
Is it correct to add the payment:lightning and payment:onchain tags if I cannot verify whether these payment methods are available? I specified that the store accepts bitcoin because it is listed on the website as "Payment types accepted:
Bit Coin"
I do not have any further information on how the payment is processed.

James

The data was generated from imagery in 2019. The state of Florida has developed some between 2019 and when I imported it in 2023, and apparently this commercial area filled in the reservoir and built shops. I've updated the map to reflect this:
changeset/156701755
-James Crawford

Hi mcedith,

I changed the objects you tagged as man_made=communications_tower to man_made=mast. please read the wiki documentation about these tags:

man_made=communications_tower
man_made=mast

--SherbetS