I see this at https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#help-about
"waycolor:background
waycolor:background:foreground
waycolor:background:foreground:foreground2
waycolor:background:foreground:foreground2:text:textcolor
waycolor:background:foreground:text:textcolor
The waycolor must always be present but is ignored for this map. Furthermore you must specify a background, although you can leave the field empty. Next follow a maximum of two different foregrounds. In the end you may optionally add a small reference text to be added on top. The color of the text must always be specified. Note that waymarkedtrails will ignore reference texts when they become to long. How long the text can be depends on the chosen backgrounds: the hard limit is 4 characters, diamond-shaped background only take a single charaters, stripe- and bar-shaped backgrounds take no reference text at all." Is there a map that does not ignore the content of the first field?

I don't see that first field as being very important. I just use that field for a brief description of the blaze the other fields describe. I guess I use a hyphen rather than an underscore because hyphens are used, in standard written English, to join multiple words that, together, describe something.

Yes, I didn't want this relation to be apparent unless someone clicked on a segment in the relation, but I see that it does appear on Thunder Forest and Waymarked Trails. Let's see if I can fix that.

I got back to Sleeping Giant yesterday. I was wrong - the trees are white. It seems that part of the Nature Trail was discontinued, although the discontinued section still has some blazes. You can see a bunch of my pictures of the blazes at https://photos.app.goo.gl/mhVc1hkw74GGw47W9 . I thought the characters in the first field in the osmc:symbol were just a label for the tagger's convenience. Have you gotten involved with Hiking.WaymarkedTrails.org? I noticed the "stripe" option for the background recently became available.

What does the blaze actually look like? I think we'll only be able to do an approximation on osm. Wouldn't it be great if we could do custom blazes on osm? I am going out to Sleeping Giant today, I hope. I'll see if I can take a picture of a Nature Trail blaze. I think the tree is green, not white, but I'll check it out.

I don't understand why a long section of the Mattatuck Trail is tagged bridge=yes. The section is not on a boardwalk.

Actually, I'm criticizing my own mapping as much as your mapping. I have not come up with a practical way to fix the uniting of a legal boundary (Talbot WMA) with a natural=wood boundary. You're not the only mapper to conflate legal boundaries with natural=wood boundaries.

Sorry about any typos I make. I try to get it right. I make corrections where I find them. There have been major blaze changes, and some new trail sections, made there in the last year or so. You mention a blue-black trail. I don't recall a blue-black trail in Nepaug State Forest. Within the State Forest, there are no road signs. I give precedence to what people will actually see when they are on the ground, such as blazes, over labels that appear on a map. David Reik

Actually, I'm interested putting in forest cover on OSM. The trouble is putting in forest cover is a lot more complicated than people would like to assume. There was an unfortunate tradition that seems to have started with a bunch of imports of very appoximate preserve boundaries in which it was assumed that the legal boundaries of the preserves were the same as the boundaries of wooded areas, which is rarely the case. Just focusing on George F. Cloutier Memorial Forest can illuminate some of the complications. First, although the area is called "Forest," the area contains several non-forested areas. There are two bodies of water, and a large area (visible on the Bing aerial imagery) where, in 2019, there was an extensive timber harvest to salvage dead trees. Most trees were, cut but many were left, leaving an area that is more meadow than forest. Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection is interested in forest cover. Maybe they have a data set that could be imported. Maybe there is some way of putting in forest cover in the form of dots instead of area boundaries.

highway=track with tracktype=grade1 renders as a solid brown line on www.openstreetmap.org, which I think pretty clearly indicates to viewers that the road is unpaved. I use that combination of tags when the road is unpaved but sufficiently improved that a standard car could drive on it.

I just attempted to put in the Williams-Gurski Open Space boundaries more accurately than they were previously shown. I retained the Williams Park, School Park and Gurski Farm sub-sets of Williams-Gurski Open Space.

This section of Hamden has several north-south corridors that have road names on the town website, but have no roads, or even traces of past roads, in the corridors. I only wanted to show the corridor labeled "High Rock Road" to show that a particular tract was not public land. The eastern border of the private tract is formed by the High Rock Road corridor. Now, a track goes through the private land, and the private land is not posted "No Trespassing."

From http://goshen.mapxpress.net/ags_map/ , the Town of Goshen property map, it looks like the falls is on private property, but probably viewable from Goshen Land Trust property, which I put onto OSM.

People are welcome to put those tags in, if they want to. My focus was putting in tags so that people looking at www.openstreetmap.org would be able to see what the situation was with the trails in the vicinity of Humaston Brook Falls. I think it's unreasonable to expect that people will click on each element to see what tags may have been entered for each element. The names will appear, not only on www.openstreetmap.org, but on AllTrails which is how most people see my stuff. The "correct" tags would not be apparent, I don't think. Maybe a trip to Humaston Brook Falls would make everything more clear. It's a beautiful set of cascades on state land.

I struggled with what the best approach would be to present the pertinent information in this case for people who want to visit the very-hard-to-to-get-to Humaston Brook Falls. I wanted to show a doable bushwhack route. Many routes through the woods with no trails look doable on a map, but, on the ground, one finds that there are cliffs, swamps, thickets, or other obstacles. I chose my route back from the falls as the best, although it was longer than my route out. My route out had too much wetland, and mountain laurel thickets. I thought the name, "2020-4-30 bushwhack route (no path)" was sufficiently unambiguous so that people would know not to expect a trail.