Hi welcome to OSM. Please don't remove private roads, just update their tags to access=private if that's the case. Thanks

Hey Mango, thanks for responding! I didn't label the road emergency access, I just restored it because it was removed for an invalid reason. We do in fact map private roads, there are millions of private roads mapped and removing them because they are on private land is incorrect.

If you are more interested in info about that:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property

If you live there and can confirm it's private, you can definitely update the access tags to match that! Also adding gates set to private. That will help routing engines from sending people that way.

As for the feature type, This is the user that changed it to emergency access, you can ask them? changeset/168028549

But if there is literally a sign that says "emergency access only" that seems pretty clear to me, not some strange edge case ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Also try to not map for the router, generally not great practice.
osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don't_map_for_the_router

Okay if it no longer exists it can be removed. Make sure to add information like that in your chageset comment so other users understand why you are removing things! thanks

Hello, welcome to OSM. Features you removed in this changeset are valid. Please don’t remove valid OSM data.

You have a new account and might not be aware, on OSM, we do not remove features if they exist on the ground. If it exists on the ground, it is valid data regardless of a feature being public or private, designated or informal/illegal/unauthorized. Removing features that exist is actually considered vandalism.

It's clear that these features still exist on the ground. Not being public access areas is an invalid reason to remove data from OSM. So this edit is incorrect and damaging to valid OSM data.

The correct way to handle this is to use OSM's tagging system. access=private, or access=no would be appropriate if they are closed to the public. Once this is done, services that do use OSM data will reflect that and specify their access.

Please read this for more info:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property

osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

Hi welcome to OSM. can you explain why you removed these features?

Hi welcome to OSM. Wanted to let you know on OSM it is not a valid reason to remove features just because they are private. Please use access tags instead. The only reason something should be removed is it no longer exists on the ground. Another user has reverted your changes. Feel free to add a gate, and tag as access=private if thats the case on the ground.

Please read this for more info:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property

Hi skoocooms, Again I see you are still removing features that appear on the ground, they clearly follow visible tracks. Could you respond and explain why you are removing these rather than updating them and tagging them correctly as private?

OSM is a community project, you should be monitoring and responding to these comments.

Hi skoocooms, Again I see you are still removing features that appear on the ground, they clearly follow visible tracks. Could you respond and explain why you are removing these rather than updating them and tagging them correctly as private?

OSM is a community project, you should be monitoring and responding to these comments.

Hi skoocooms, you have removed features that appear on the ground, you are right they don't seem 100% aligned with the road on the ground, but its clear they mostly follow visible tracks. Could you respond and explain why you are removing these rather than updating them and tagging them correctly as private is that's the case?

Hi skoocooms, you have removed features that appear on the ground, you are right they don't seem 100% aligned with the road on the ground, but its clear they mostly follow visible tracks. Could you respond and explain why you are removing these rather than updating them and tagging them correctly as private is that's the case?

Hi, in this change set you removed a road that seems to still appear in areal imagery, could you explain why? It seems like it was labeled highway=service is that incorrect, and why remove it and not just update the feature type?

Thanks for updating those access tags! Only thing to note is the name tags should be used for a features name not a description of its access. But it seems like those proposed trail features were tagged incorrectly already, they were marked as in construction, when it seems like that's not true. So I fixed that. Thanks for updating osm!

More info if you are interested:
osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions

Hello, welcome to OSM. The feature you removed in this changeset is valid. Please don’t remove valid OSM data.

You have a new account and might not be aware, on OSM, we do not remove features if they exist on the ground. If it exists on the ground, it is valid data regardless of a feature being public or private, designated or informal/illegal/unauthorized. Removing features that exist is actually considered vandalism.

It's clear that these features still exist on the ground. Not being public access areas is an invalid reason to remove data from OSM. So this edit is incorrect and damaging to valid OSM data.

The correct way to handle this is to use OSM's tagging system. access=private, or access=no would be appropriate if they are closed to the public. Once this is done, services that do use OSM data will reflect that and specify their access.

Please read this for more info:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property

osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

Oh made my comment and when the page refreshed saw your comment Neis, I see this is a vandalism account now.

Hi welcome to OSM. in this change set you removed building outlines. Have the buildings been demolished or is the businesses there just closed?

When updating OSM please leave useful changeset comments, especially when removing things.

osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Hi welcome to OSM. You have been using the Name tag incorrectly. The name tag is not for discriptions, you should not be naming things like Field 1,2,3/barn/grass. Please stop using the name tag in this way or you might be at risk of having all your work removed. Please go back through your 20 or so edits and remove the name tag.

Please read this wiki page for more info:
osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions

Hi welcome to OSM. You have been using the Name tag incorrectly. The name tag is not for discriptions, you should not be naming things like Field 1,2,3/barn/grass. Please stop using the name tag in this way or you might be at risk of having all your work removed. Please go back through your 20 or so edits and remove the name tag.

Please read this wiki page for more info:
osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions

Hi welcome to OSM. You have been using the Name tag incorrectly. The name tag is not for discriptions, you should not be naming things like Field 1,2,3/barn/grass. Please stop using the name tag in this way or you might be at risk of having all your work removed. Please go back through your 20 or so edits and remove the name tag.

Please read this wiki page for more info:
osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions

Hi thanks for the reply! No OSM does not support illegal activity. If you have someone trespassing, I'd suggest asking the police to help with that.

Also there is no indication these tracks where added by someone physically present at that location. They were added by a user making edits around all around the world. Its more likely they added them based of aerial imagery, which is a completely valid way to contribute to OSM.

I went a head and tagged these paths private based on your feedback and as an example for you.

Hello, welcome to OSM. The feature you removed in this changeset is valid. Please don’t remove valid OSM data.

You have a new account and might not be aware, on OSM, we do not remove features if they exist on the ground. If it exists on the ground, it is valid data regardless of a feature being public or private, designated or informal/illegal/unauthorized. Removing features that exist is actually considered vandalism.

It's clear that these features still exist on the ground. Not being public access areas is an invalid reason to remove data from OSM. So this edit is incorrect and damaging to valid OSM data.

The correct way to handle this is to use OSM's tagging system. access=private, or access=no would be appropriate if they are closed to the public. Once this is done, services that do use OSM data will reflect that and specify their access.

Please read this for more info:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property

osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F