Hello! Thank you for your contributions! I've noticed that some of your edits are a bit unorthodox, e.g. personal identifying information shouldn't be mapped. Micromapping is all well and good, just don't put your neighbor's name on it. If you have any questions on how any of this works, I've been mapping in South Dakota since 2011 so feel free to reach out.

The wiki (osm.wiki/Main_Page) is also useful if you have questions about tags.

Miles

There's some other stuff I saw in the area while doing township stuff, think I can salvage it. My family homesteaded in Spink County so I kind of know the area.

probably should have added the French name of the James River in a different changeset, oh well

Update, iD didn't like me just using source either

"Line must have descriptive tags"

so I added a descriptive tag and then deleted it and it was okay with that

I've tried to document the SD oddities in the US boundary (or admin level, can't remember which one) page on the wiki

If you could add the "X is missing from OSM but is listed on the Census Bureau list of CDPs" ones that would be great... there's a couple out there that have name conflicts/SD-specific issues (Dakota Dunes is a CDP with an administrative boundary!).

Feel free to message me if things come up (it'll be easier to see than a changeset comment), there's a number of relations on the list that I either created or was the last editor on (some a long time ago when I didn't know what I was doing)

The issue was creating a boundary relation with untagged ways

I've had that pulled up as I've been going through the state, need to add some of the relations I've added to Wikidata

Basically the issue was I was seeing iD not let me save anything unless my ways in the boundary relation had a tag, I've been using boundary=administrative for that but moving forward I'll use the source tag

Once I have some free time (ha ha ha) I'll go back to the counties I've done boundary cleanup in and make that the standard way for tagging ways in boundary relations (at least in SD)

I think it was just warning about completely untagged ways that weren't part of a multipolygon relation, I went back and added the source tag to the way and that solved the problem

Should I not add "boundary=administrative, admin_level=whatever" to boundary ways when I'm updating them? The iD validator gets upset with me if the way isn't tagged

That's public access? I was always too nervous to check it out.

here's my first attempt, using the Chamberlain section as a guinea pig: changeset/156538408

Makes sense, looks like it was added to the relations 4 years ago by someone in KC.

I'll do some digging and see if there's a good way to denote part-time fishing access rather than just yes or no.

Shore fishing is still allowed though, and that's roughly a 1/4 mile stretch for 5 months out of the year. Not sure the best way to tag that though. Looking at other states it appears that there's a few other small areas where fishing is allowed most of the time.

The best way to do this would be if the fishing tag had a "designated" option instead of just yes or no, but there's not much documentation on that.

Where would fishing not be allowed, do you think? I know for sure it's allowed through all of South Dakota (know people in GF&P)

Hi! Thanks for your contributions! Just so you're aware, abbreviating route ref modifiers is against the community norms for tagging route refs (see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/kevinajames95-currently-mangling-tags-along-route-66-and-bannered-routes-elsewhere/106723). Feel free to join that thread for discussion. Thanks again!

Hi! Thanks for your contributions! Just so you're aware, abbreviating route ref modifiers is against the community norms for tagging route refs (see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/kevinajames95-currently-mangling-tags-along-route-66-and-bannered-routes-elsewhere/106723). Feel free to join that thread for discussion. Thanks again!

Hi! Thanks for your contributions! Just so you're aware, abbreviating route ref modifiers is against the community norms for tagging route refs (see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/kevinajames95-currently-mangling-tags-along-route-66-and-bannered-routes-elsewhere/106723). Feel free to join that thread for discussion. Thanks again!

They opened the bike path? Gonna have to check that out when I'm back in town.