It's truly amazing to have such easy access to that data set. Happy mapping!

Are you aware of the availability of VCGI LiDAR - DEM Hillshade in the iD editor? This can be super helpful on trail alignments as often you can see the dimple of the trails. Thought I'd mention it as lots of folks don't know about it.

USGS 3D Elevation Program is also available nationally but is less detailed in the state of VT

Hello! I see you marked this relationship as landuse=forest. Per guidance, this should only be used when the exact area of a boundary shares the exact boundary of the landuse. In this case, this edit suggests that Kendall Pond, a body of water, is a forest.

There's additional guidance on how to map boundary=forest here: boundary=forest#How_to_map

Hello Utible,

Can you explain why you're stripping the name= from VT state highways in Hardwick? I did a massive effort to make sure all sections of state highways had the name= filled in. In the absence of road signs, we utilize the names from the E911 data set for stretches of road.

The street imagery I've seen shows this labeled as a private road. Based on VT land access laws, the general consensus is this should be tagged ownership=private, and only use access=private or motor_vehicle=private if the street is explicitly signed for that.

See this section for more background: osm.wiki/Vermont#Road_Ownership_and_Access

No objections to the name change from me! For historical context there was some merging of State of VT resources and the iD editor for OSM. Data that came over as Deerwood HL (or any abbreviation of HL) was labeled 'hollow' whereas the overwhelming majority of these instances it should be 'hill'.

If you see other instances of this that you know are wrong, I think it's safe to go ahead and make those edits. No discussion needed

Hi boulter! Just curious what materials you have reviewed that suggest that leaving trails DISCONNECTED is the preferred method of mapping ski resorts? I've reviewed a lot of documentation and haven't been able to find any documentation for that. Further, it feels like its contrary to what OSM is supposed to be, a representation of the world as we interact with it. By disconnected trails, it seems to imply that the trail just...ends. There's no way to move on from the terminus of a trail. Any navigation apps that exist or may be developed would be useless, as it wouldn't be able to instruct a user how to get from one trail to the next, or from one trail to the next lift. Additionally, I've seen this pitfall in the past, just because the Okemo trial map lines don't connect, does not mean we should not connect them. The Okemo trail map is a copyrighted artistic rendering of their resort. It should not be a goal for OSM to look exactly like their map. I've seen instances where the official trail map of a resort is incorrect, and OSM's guidance is for 'ground truthing', or mapping what actually exists on the ground.

Thanks for reading! I'm looking forward to learning from you the perspective/reasoning for the edits.

Are you able to confirm that the trails are signed in their historical entirety? Or are the signs now only up for trails where public access is allowed? I'd like to preserve as much information that you've added but also recognizing that if there are no signs and no access allowed, those trails should sadly be deleted entirely.

I've located this map: https://www.suttonnh.gov/media/556

Which has much more limited access than suggested by the trail edits added on this changeset. The OSM data needs to be updated to better reflect the reality on the ground.

Similarly to my other comment about the lifts, I'm not sure its appropriate to add these trails in. Given the outlines/grade of the trails still exist, there may be a path to keep them, however, it's dubious under OSM guidelines. Are these trails still signed? Even if signed, they should be properly marked with access and lifecycle tagging so no one assumes access is allowed when it's explicitly denied

Do you mind sharing your justification for this changeset? OpenStreetMap is not for historical information, and since the majority of infrastructure for the former King Ridge Ski Area has been removed, it isn't appropriate to be added to the map.

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