I understand that they don't have descriptive tags. Can I suggest for National Forests, instead of landuse=forest, using boundary=protected_area? That's I think the least number of tags to add that would be accurate, but more can be found here if you'd like to supplement: osm.wiki/United_States/Public_lands#Agriculture_Department_.28USDA.29_National_Forests_.28USFS.29.2C_National_Grasslands.2C_Special_Biological_Areas.

As for deleting them "sometime in the future", I'm working on it. It's not just a matter of downloading and deleting the ways, because I want to make sure that they aren't breaking anything else if they're connected to something. I have removed 2/3 parts for Wayne. Allegheny is next.

No hard feelings!

I noticed that you added landuse=forest to a lot of National Forests. I know for a fact that for Wayne and Allegheny, this tag is incorrect. I recently changed the polygons of these two NFs to reflect the actual USFS land, not the proclamation boundaries (which are not the boundaries of the National Forests, but just boundaries where the NFs can acquire land). I have reversed these two NFs, but in future, can you check that the coverage of polygons is actually forest? Thanks!

I agree with your assessment of Middle Ridge/Trail of Doom. That segment of trail made some sense as ToD when Area 51 was there, but having ToD start arbitrarily at a switchback makes no sense. Thanks for keeping the relations cohesive!

Yep, as soon as I submitted them, I realized that it wasn't wise. My apologies.

No worries, but while it is a prison (amenity=prison), it is still a building, so it needs the building=yes tag. I guess you probably used the preset for prison?

When you're editing an object, if you scroll down to the bottom of the left sidebar, you can see the actual tags you're changing/adding, so you can get an idea of what's going on.

Also, if you haven't found it yet, osm.wiki/Main_Page has a lot of info about every tag. Apparently, amenity=prison is ideally a polygon of the land that the prison is taking up, not just a building, but I think it's fine this way too.

Hey, I see you're using Bing Aerial Imagery for your additions. For this area, I strongly recommend switching to Mapbox Satellite (in the Background Settings menu on the right in the editor). It's a lot higher resolution, and it's much more accurate in alignment, whereas Bing is off by 10-20 feet or more.

It's not so much the tagging as the drawing and aligning that kills my motivation.

Nice work! Those parking aisles can be really annoying to add...

Hi AParsley,

Great job on the additions. However, I noticed that it looks like you're using Bing Imagery as your background layer. That's pretty badly offset, and also not very sharp. I'd recommend using Mapbox Satellite. It aligns with GPS traces pretty well, much better than Bing.

I understand that it is not a public path. The fact remains that the path exists, and OSM is about mapping what is there, not what should be. The line should remain on the map as long as there is a path on the ground, and there are tags to add to it to make it clear that it is not public access. If access=private isn't enough, put on access=no. It would be the fault of a routing engine if it allows access through a road tagged that way, and I have yet to come across one that does route on a private road.

I would think that a person riding or hiking around here might see the path on the ground and see nothing on the map, assume it's okay to hike. So keeping it in the database with a clear tag stating it is not public would, I think, prevent careless trespassing.

If the path exists, it should be on the map, even if it's unsanctioned. It is not clear from external sources if it is private or not, so I'm not adding any access tags to it at this time, but I have surveyed this in the past, and the path exists.

Whether or not it's private doesn't change whether it exists. I'm reverting the changeset. Based on https://gissites2.centrecountypa.gov/java/centregis_public/ and http://centrecountypa.gov/index.aspx?NID=424, the land is Vacant, which is hard to declare as private, but for now I'm putting an access=private tag on it.

I understand. I was not aware of the distinction between the campus and ag-sci area. I've removed the latter from the former, and added the ag-sci area to the super-relation of Penn State that includes all the campuses.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

That's a fair point. I didn't realize that the geocoders had trouble. Although, might that be a problem with the geocoders and not the database?
I don't enjoy making landuse/area polygons that abut when I can use the adjacent sections as part of relations for each (so one line used twice). And I also don't think that the main campus section (in town) should be separated from the research farm, as it's all part of University Park campus.

I haven't been to Bellefonte in awhile; is the building next to the YMCA actually gone, or has the pub just moved to a different one down the street?

Hi! It looks like you probably meant to add car parking here. This big a bike lot would be awesome, but I don't think it's right....

Whoops. The dataset I was working from to compare had those keys, and I forgot to remove them. Thanks for pointing it out. I'll edit.

Seems it was fixed. I'm not sure what happened there. But it's all good now. Thanks for pointing it out.

Most of the construction is done, but until they remove the orange barrels, I'm going to assume (and hope) that they might still improve the painted lanes. So until then, it's probably premature to add lane information.

Hi Jim,

Welcome to OSM. I want to point out that OSM is a database of current information, so the points you added for old train stations aren't really something that you should add. There might be better tags you could use if you want to put that information in, though, such as demolished=*: (so you could add "demolished:building=train_station"). They're not really attractions, after all. Thanks!