Hi! Just wondering if you used any guidance when adding the landuse=forest to the protected areas around Stark, NH? It was my understanding that the landcover of a boundary (such as Nash Stream Forest) should be mapped separately. The reasoning is that the edges of a forest rarely align with the boundaries of protected areas, and a blanket forest over the entire tract of land doesn't represent the roads, fields, buildings, and bodies of water that are often present.

Accountability is good! And I think disused is the right lifecycle term. It is of course originally a golf course but it’s no longer maintained for that purpose, but it also hasn’t been redeveloped or changed much, it just been allowed to go slightly wild. It’s used for walking, running, and XC skiing now.

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/why-darmouth-s-beloved-and-historic-hanover-cc-is-suffering-an-u

I recently visited the area and noticed you just added in some of these trails. It looks like you used Strava Heatmap, which is great. As a tip, you should check out the USGS 3D Elevation Program background in the editor. This shows LiDAR imagery and I've found it really helpful for trail mapping/tracing by using this imagery paired with local trail maps or heatmap data. LiDAR will often show evidence of really old roads that no longer exist, so it shouldn't be used as a primary source, but it's really valuable to show details under tree canopies.

Thank you DUGA. I have converted this into an emergency bay per your suggested correction.

FYI, I'm not entirely sure what sources you were using to 'ground-truth', but your changeset largely added in paths that had been removed. So the data you added is at odds with what is actually on the ground. I'd suggest comparing a couple different aerial images and identifying conflicts before you assume one imagery is the actual. I'm going to clean this up as I live close by and I can ground survey anything that is questionable.

What graniteview imagery were you using to add Whitcherville Road as a connecting road between Lost River Road and Coventry Road? I visited this on foot from both ends in 2019 and determined there was no evidence this road existed anymore. I was quite surprised to see it showing up on maps again. changeset/71781412

Just an FYI; in VT when a road sign says "PVT" it indicates private ownership, but it doesn't make any implications about access. Unless the road has explicit signs regarding no trespassing or no motor vehicles, the access should not be marked private.

I saw a couple items in this changeset that I've manually changed back but wanted to let you know for your future edits!

osm.wiki/Vermont

I second TomPar's concern with this edit. Can onX share some of its editing practices so local reviewers understand what information is being used to make edits? This stretch of road is documented on the town level and the state level for recreational use and access=private implies NO access whatsoever. The two are in conflict and we'd love to get this right so the groups who can use this know they can use it, but also properly communicate to use cases that should NOT be using this

No worries. There's soooo much data and it's easy to make interpretational mistakes.

Hi Chad!

I was simply the last editor on that way, the private tag goes back to the original TIGER import which included a lot of bad =private tagging. I have no objections to you removing it. Go ahead and thanks for the collaboration!

Heads up. The distinction between highway=residential and highway=track is a commonly confused distinction. These keys discuss USAGE, and not the quality of the road. highway=track should be used when the road is used to access land (like a farmer's field or a clearing in the woods for logging). Some of these roads you tagged here are used to access buildings (homes).

Quality of the road can be captured with smoothness=*, width=* tracktype=*.

highway=*

Why did you delete the existing school ground and adding a new one? This deletes valuable history and is against best OSM practices. Why didn't you just edit the existing object?

Is there any documentation supporting creating a relationship to represent completely separate objects? This is against what I understand and have been instructed against it.

For clarity, this is in regards to taking individual rows of solar panels, deleting their tags, and adding a relationship for separate rows to share, all objects are 'outer' and there's no 'inner'.

FYI, this is a two way segment ever since they installed the Park and Ride a few years ago. I'm reverting your change.

Hi pyram,

VT E911 has the road labeled 'Unknown Road' and has multiple addresses along the way marked with # Unknown Road. Whether or not this road has a street sign that says Unknown Road, I do not know. However, for navigational and emergency purposes, this does appear to be the most official name of the road.

I've added a note to memorialize my analysis. I appreciate your caution in both questioning the strange road and digging deeper before making any changes!

Please review VT's guidelines for road tagging before reverting more changes. VT has an active Slack channel and are happy to engage in discussions.

I had checked with the mapping community on the osm Slack channel discussing these changes. The community was in agreement that many of these edits should be reverted. The guidance, between track/service being: highway=track roads access land, highway=service roads access facilities. The distinction here can be a bit muddled, but my rationale was this: roads that encourage traffic to specific places with infrastructure designed for specific activities, should be service. This would include the various boardwalk trails, picnic areas, boat launches, cabins/buildings, trailheads, etc. Pretty much anything with a sign, and some things without signs. Roads that access 'land' would be track. This would include dead end roads where logging roads use for access to the forest, or other roads hunters/birdwatchers/bushwhackers might use to access remote areas. The distinction between track/service (and many of the other highway= tags) has to do with how the roads are used, and doesn't reflect their condition. There are tags for tracktype=* and smoothness=* that describe the appropriateness of different types of vehicles, such as off-road capable trucks vs. standard sedans, etc. Further, something can be a highway, and be closed to traffic, or closed to non personnel of the land management team. There are many access= related tags to capture that information.

I recognize that I'm primarily an armchair mapper but I don't make decisions willy-nilly. I also correct a lot of bad information in OSM. I invite those with better or more recent knowledge to correct any of my mistakes, just as I do for others. You are in a unique position to contribute really valuable information to the map for the lands you manage, but there are goals and standards of the OSM that might not line up with the goals and standards of the government agencies you work with. It's a delicate dance, but I encourage you to engage the community when you have questions.

I'd expect you to revert the changes you made, specifically the highway=* tagging. However, if you don't after a period of time, I'll go in and do what I think is appropriate.

You recently mapped these Balsams Wilderness Trails. Do you have any insight on how the xc trails around Mud Pond are for summer access? I've found very little public data and I was thinking about venturing out that way.

The state of Vermont has an E911 access road mapped at that location, and E911 addresses registered to "Lewis Pond Trail". If this road truly does not exist the E911 resources should be updated to prevent any misunderstanding should first responders ever need to access this location. https://maps.vermont.gov/e911/Html5Viewer/?viewer=e911viewer